How Dirhams Reached Medieval Russia

EHESS
When and How Dirhams First Reached Russia: A Numismatic Critique of the Pirenne
Theory
Author(s): Thomas S. Noonan
Source: Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique, Vol. 21, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Dec., 1980), pp. 401-
469
Published by: EHESS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20169903
Accessed: 16-08-2017 11:24 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
EHESS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cahiers du
Monde russe et soviétique
This content downloaded from 203.130.107.115 on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:24:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
DOSSIER
THOMAS S. NOONAN
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS

FIRST REACHED RUSSIA*
A numismatic critique of the Pirenne theory
The thousands of medieval Islamic silver coins, or dirham

in European Russia have been the subject of numerous st
since the early nineteenth century. Given the voluminous l
on these coins which has appeared over the past two centuries, o
expect that many of the basic problems concerning the dir
from Russia had been resolved or, at least, the means for reso
had been developed. In particular, one might well assume, aft
two hundred years of investigation, that we had a fairly goo
when, how, and why these dirhams first appeared in medie
Such an assumption would be erroneous.
Prior to the 1920^, much had been written about when dirh
reached Eastern Europe and the proposed answers spanned t
from the seventh to the early ninth centuries. Advocates of
and eighth centuries pointed, for example, to the many dirh
seventh and eighth centuries found throughout Russia. Their
was, in essence, that the earliest dirhams discovered wit
indicated when these coins had first reached Russia.1 Howe
series of articles published during the i92o's and 1930's, the w
specialist in medieval Islamic numismatics, R. R. Fasmer
demonstrated that dirhams first appeared in Russia around the y
Fasmer argued that the dirham hoards of the early ninth centur
contained coins from a much earlier time. But, drachms an
of the seventh and eighth centuries could only have reac
starting around 800; otherwise, we should encounter hoards
exclusively of these earlier coins. But, dirham hoards dating fro
800 had not yet been uncovered (and they are still unknown
* The original version of this study was presented at the Midw
Conference, Bloomington, Indiana, April 1978. A synopsis of this much
expanded version was presented at the Ninth International Numismatic
in Berne, September 1979. The author would like to thank Dr. D. M
the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford University for his careful evalua
original version and many helpful suggestions, Sandra Haas and Su-
of the Cartography Lab of the Department of Geography, University of
for drawing the maps and charts.
Cahiers du Monde russe et sovi?tique, XXI (3-4), juil.-d?c. ig8o, pp. 4
402 THOMAS S. N00NAN
Map I. EARLY CAUCASIAN DIRHAM HOARDS

(The numbers refer to the hoards
listed in Appendix I.)
Europe). Consequently, the date of the earliest dirham hoards deter

mines when dirhams first reached medieval Russia.3
In the mid-1950's, V. L. Ianin accepted Fasmer's methodology for
dating the appearance of dirhams and was in substantial accord with his
conclusion of ca. 800.4 In fact, since the publication of Fasmer's articles,
both his methodology and his dating have received widespread accep
tance. For this reason, the articles of N. F. Kotlar5 and U. S. Linder
Welin6, published fairly recently, were quite unexpected. While Kotlar
focuses upon the Ukraine and Linder Welin deals with Sweden, both
authors argue that dirhams first reached Eastern Europe by 750 because
of the individual finds of dirhams and drachms from the mid-eighth
century and earlier. In other words, Kotlar and Linder Welin reject
Fasmer's methodology and revert to the older practice of dating by
separate finds. Given the force and logic of Fasmer's approach, it is not
surprising that both the Linder Welin and Kotlar studies have been
criticized.7
Over a century was necessary before a more or less scientific method
for dating the appearance of dirhams was devised by Fasmer. Further
more, even today, almost a half-century after Fasmer's pioneering works,
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 403
Map II. EARLY RUSSIAN DIRHAM HOARDS

(The numbers refer to the hoards
listed in Appendix III.)
this method has not been fully accepted and a reversion to pre-Fasmer
practices is all too frequent. Despite these continuing disputes over how
to determine when dirhams first reached European Russia, we must
keep in mind that this question is the best studied of the three posed at
the start of this work. And, it is the only question for which a method
ology or method for resolving the issue has been developed. Despite
his later day critics, Fasmer was able to demonstrate when dirhams first
reached medieval Russia. To date, no such method has been devised
for determining how they reached Russia, i.e., the routes by which
dirhams were initially brought to Eastern Europe. And, to the best
of my knowledge, no one has yet examined the specific circumstances
which would explain why dirhams began to circulate in Russia around 800.
The purpose of this study is to propose some solutions for the question
of how and to begin to address the question of why the period around
800 A.D. in particular.
4o4 THOMAS S. NOONAN
The discussion of how is presently at the same stag

debate over when before the time of Fasmer's studies
various opinions but no one has yet worked out a mean
how the early dirhams reached Russia. In general, tw
to be employed by scholars trying to identify the routes
appeared in Russia. The first method is based on the
for example, pointed to the paucity of dirham hoard
lower Volga and lower Donets, i.e., territory within t
and he concluded that all dirhams reaching Russia
eighth and early eleventh centuries must have come v
rather than through the Khazar kaganate and its
V. V. Kropotkin has used the same find-spot method b
a quite different conclusion. He has pointed to the
hoards from the Khazar lands and from the regions
Khazars as evidence that dirhams circulated in the ka
there presumably reached European Russia.9 Thus, the
not proved definitive primarily because scholars can
many find-spots must occur within the Khazar lands
that dirhams were brought to medieval Russia by wa
kaganate.
There is, however, a much more fundamental argument against the
first method. By and large, the location of a dirham hoard in Eastern
Europe does not conclusively show how the coins in the hoard reached
their find-spot. One can look at the map and construct any number of
hypothetical routes by which a given hoard might have come either
via the Khazar or Bulgar lands. In fact, the Khazar vs. Volga Bulgar
dichotomy is in itself misleading. The real question is whether dirhams
were brought to Eastern Europe at a given period by way of the Caspian/
Caucasus or whether they were carried there from Central Asia and
Transoxiana. Dirhams coming by both routes could pass through
either the Khazar or Bulgar lands or both. But, regardless of whether
dirhams went via the Khazars or Volga Bulgars or both, one cannot
identify with any certainty their actual route, whether Caucasus/Caspian
or Central Asia, based solely on the find-spot in medieval Russia.
The second method emphasizes the mints of the dirhams in the hoard,
especially the mints of the most recent coins. It is based on the assump
tion that the most recent coins in a hoard were most likely struck in or
near that part of the caliphate from which the coins in the hoard were
exported while dirhams from more distant regions were apt to be older.
The mints of the most recent coins, it is argued, "provide the best clue to
the area from which the coins were exported."10 Furthermore, this
approach implicitly believes that the identification of these exporting
regions can tell us the route by which the hoards were transported to
Eastern Europe. Sture Bolin, for example, saw two groups of ninth
century Russian hoards. In one, the most recent coins came from mints
located in the southern Caucasus and southern Caspian regions and adjoin
ing areas. These hoards supposedly reached Russia by the Caspian/
Caucasus route through the Khazar kaganate. In the second group,
the most recent dirhams were struck in Khurasan and Transoxiana.
These hoards allegedly were brought to Eastern Europe from Central Asia
through the Volga Bulgar lands.11 The second method is thus the reverse
of the first; it is based on the place of origin of the dirhams within Islam
rather than their find-spot in Russia.
While useful in certain circumstances, the second method is far from
infallible. The circulation of dirhams within Islam combined with
the sporadic emission of coins from certain mints makes it impossible
for us to conclude that dirhams, even the most recent ones, were neces
sarily incorporated into a hoard in the city of their issue or at the time
of their issuance. Coins could be exported from a region which had few
active mints at the time and the most recent dirhams might well be those
from distant mints whose production was large and whose coins conse
quently circulated throughout numerous areas.
The geographical determinism of the second method becomes
problematic if the most recent coins were struck outside such provinces
as ?dharb?yj?n, Jib?l, Tabarist?n, and Jurj?n along the Caspian or
Khw?razm and M? war?' al-Nahr in Central Asia. Did coins from
Iraq and Ahw?z necessarily flow north toward the Caucasus? What
about F?rs, Sijist?n, and western Khurasan which lay somewhere between
the Caspian/Caucasus and Central Asia? The second method only works
well as an indicator of routes if the most recent mints are located in
certain areas.
The second method also raises an interesting question about the
nature of monetary circulation. If hoards were put together from the
coins circulating in one part of Islam and transported directly to their
find-spot in Eastern Europe for deposit, the logic of this approach has a
certain validity. But, if dirhams circulated within Eastern Europe and
were mixed there with dirhams imported at various times as well as
coins from other countries, then the hoard reflects the coin stock found
in Russia as much as the coins circulating within the exporting regions of
Islam at the time. The presence of Byzantine, Volga Bulgar, Rus', and
Western European coins in the dirham hoards from Russia demonstrates
that some mixing of coins, some degree of monetary circulation, did take
place in Eastern Europe.12 The second method does not take into
account the impact of monetary circulation within Russia upon the
composition of a dirham hoard.
The second method, while helpful in certain circumstances, is not a
perfect guide. It is best employed in conjunction with other evidence
as a supplementary source. I might also note that Bolin's work, which
has not been published, is only known to readers through the summaries
found in Sawyer. There is no indication in Sawyer's book of how Bolin
analyzed the route by which the earliest dirham hoards reached Eastern
Europe and Scandinavia.
The solution to the question of how dirhams first reached medieval
Russia does not lie, I believe, in an investigation which is confined to
either their find-spots or their places of origin. Rather, we should focus
our attention on the regions through which these dirhams were likely to
travel, i.e., their possible routes. This rather straightforward approach
n
to the question has, unfortunately, been ignored in the studies known

to me. Most scholars of the dirham flow into Eastern Europe have
concentrated on either the mints within Islam where the dirhams were
struck or on their points of deposit throughout medieval Russia. For
some unexplicable reason, they have neglected the intermediary lands
through which the dirhams may have been brought on their journey
from the Islamic world to Eastern Europe.
The most probable answer to our problem was uncovered by chance
while I was examining the dirham hoards from the Caucasus in connection
with another research project. There is no doubt that the dirham hoards
from the Caucasus are of great importance in the study of dirham circula
tion both within Islam and in Eastern Europe. A sufficient number of
hoards have been uncovered in the Caucasus to provide substantial
numismatic data for comparison with the data derived from Islamic and
Russian dirham hoards. Such comparative analysis is vital if we are to
separate the more universal characteristics of dirham hoards at any given
period from the peculiarities of specific regions. For this reason, I am
convinced that the examination of the Caucasian hoards can be of
considerable assistance in resolving several of the problems in medieval
Islamic and Eastern European numismatic history. The value of these
hoards is further enhanced by the fact that over a period of some forty
years E. A. Pakhomov managed to publish almost all the coin finds from
the Caucasus uncovered before the mid-ig?o's.13 Therefore, we possess
fairly complete and recent data on the Caucasian dirham hoards.14
An analysis of Pakhomov's nine volumes shows that Sasanian
drachms, as measured by their hoards, circulated in fairly large numbers
throughout the Transcaucasus until the collapse of Sasanian power in
this region during the period 625-630. After this time, monetary circula
tion declined sharply. There are, for example, no hoards of Arab
Sasanian dirhams from the Caucasus. The only Umayyad hoard consist
ed of the 12 silver coins found in a clay jug near Dzhimi, Baku province,
in 1913. This small hoard contained one Sasanian drachm of Khusrau 11
(613), ten Umayyad dirhams struck between 704 and 717, and one
undated Georgian imitation of a drachm of Hormizd iv.15 During the
last three quarters of the seventh and the first three quarters of the eighth
centuries, we simply do no find hoards of oriental or eastern coins in the
Caucasus besides the one small Umayyad hoard noted above.
The disappearance of oriental hoards in the Caucasus after 630 is
paralleled by the clear drop in Byzantine hoards after the reign of Hera
clius. Appendix 11 lists all the Byzantine hoards of the seventh and
eighth centuries from the Caucasus. Of the twelve hoards from this
group, about nine or 75 % (No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,10, 11) can be attributed
to the reign of Heraclius (610-641). Two of the remaining three hoards
(No. 6, 7) date to the reign of his successor Constans (641-668). The
final small hoard (No. 12) comes from the time of Constantine iv (668
685). There are no Byzantine hoards from the Caucasus during the last
fifteen years of the seventh and the entire eighth centuries. The abrupt
cessation in the circulation of oriental coins ca. 625-630 was followed by a
marked decline in the circulation of Byzantine coins after 641 and a
complete end to Byzantine hoards after 685. Thus, monetary circulation
in the Caucasus, as measured by hoard formation, seems to have declined
precipitously after ca. 630 and to have been minimal or non-existent
after ca. 685.
The hoardless period in the numismatic history of the Transcaucasus
ended around 770. In Appendix 1, I have summarized the data on
Caucasian dirham hoards of the late eighth and early ninth centuries
found in Pakhomov and other sources. The number of hoards listed in
Appendix 1 is not to be considered as a hard and fast figure. Only one
or a few dirhams from several hoards have been identified (No. 1, 2, 11)
and thus, their inclusion in Appendix 1 is only tentative. Several other
hoards were very small (No. 6, 10) while only part of another hoards was
preserved (No. 15). We cannot tell, for certain, how much confidence
can be placed in such hoards. Nevertheless, we have reliable information
about nine sizeable hoards found in the Caucasus whose most recent
dirham dates to the period in question, i.e., whose date of burial most
likely took place sometime in the late eighth and early ninth centuries
(No. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,12,13, 14). The dates of these nine hoards, arranged
in chronological order, are: 771/72, 780/81, 782/83, 785/86, 803/04,
804/05 (2), 807/08 and 811/12. In other words, there can be no doubt
that, starting around 770, coin hoards were again buried in the Caucasus
after a hiatus of 100-150 years. The dates of the two mini-hoards and
the one partially preserved hoard further buttress this conclusion: 786/87
(2), 787/88. In the period after 770, coin hoards reappeared in the
Caucasus.
According to one point of view, the hoarding of coins results from
disturbed conditions and war. Conversely, the absence of coin hoards
is attributed to peace. From this perspective, the sharp decline and
then disappearance of Caucasian coin hoards starting ca. 630 might be
explained not by the decline and disappearance of coinage in circulation,
but by the peaceful conditions which prevailed at this period. Similarly,
the reappearance of Caucasian coin hoards after 770 could be linked with
more disturbed conditions rather than the resumption of a significant
level of monetary circulation. Whatever its validity elsewhere may be,
the war -> hoarding, peace -> non-hoarding thesis does not apply to the
case in question. The period from ca. 640 to ca. 750 witnessed a major
struggle between the Khazars and the Arabs for domination of the
Caucasus. This conflict involved several major campaigns and numerous
raids.16 Yet, despite all of the well documented Khazar raids into Trans
caucasia, only one small dirham hoard and three Byzantine hoards can
be dated to this period. The Arab-Khazar struggle for control of the
Caucasus seems to have inhibited rather than encouraged coin hoarding.
While Arab-Khazar warfare continued after 750 and Khazar raids as
well as native uprisings against Arab rule are recorded, we also have
evidence, to be discussed later, that Arab-Khazar relations became better
after 750 and that Khazar campaigns into Transcaucasia ceased after 800.
Thus, the reappearance of coin hoards in the Caucasus dates to the period
when Arab-Khazar relations were clearly improving. Although other
factors need to be considered, it appears, on balance, that the most
extreme phase of Arab-Khazar hostility proved detrimental to coin
hoarding while more peaceful relations encouraged hoard formation.
The presence or absence of coin hoards in the Caucasus can best be

explained by the presence or absence of coins available for hoarding in
the Caucasus. Hoarding declined between 630 and 770 because relatively
few coins were in circulation. Otherwise, frequent Khazar-Arab incur
sions and various local revolts could have been expected to produce a
significant number of hoards. At the same time, the increase in the
number of coins in circulation ca. 770 meant that, despite somewhat
improved relations, hoards were once again being deposited. In short*
hoarding only took place in the Caucasus when coins were available to
hoard, i.e., when some degree of monetary circulation existed.
Thus far, we have seen that dirham hoards first appeared in th?
Caucasus starting about 770 while the earliest dirham hoards from Russia
date from the late eighth century (Staraia Ladoga, 787). This circum
stance naturally raises the question of whether the appearance of dirham
hoards in the Caucasus and Russia at almost the same time was coinci
dental or whether both phenomena were part of a larger, related develop
ment. A superficial review of the relevant hoards from both regions
showed a similarity in several basic characteristics, e.g., recently minted
'Abb?sid dirhams formed the vast majority of the coins in both early
Russian and early Caucasian dirham hoards. This similarity in compo
sition suggested that the almost simultaneous appearance of dirham hoards
in Russia and the Caucasus was not coincidence. Hoards of similar
coins appearing at almost the same time in adjoining regions were likely
to have been part of a common development. Consequently, the initial
hypothesis posed by this study is that the earliest dirhams to reach Russia
during the late eighth and early ninth centuries came from Islam by
the Caucasus/Caspian route and that the existence of such a route can
be seen in the similarity of the coins which are found in both regions at
this time.
This hypothesis does not require that the hoards from both regions
be identical in every respect. In fact, several alternative patterns can
be proposed, each of which is consistent with our hypothesis. The
hoards from both regions could have been composed of coins drawn
from another area, say Iraq. In this case, part of the coins from this
common, third source were deposited in the Caucasus while others reached
Russia. Alternatively, the dirhams which were brought to Russia may
have come from the coins circulating in the Caucasus. A third possibility
is that some of the early dirhams exported to Russia came from a third,
common source while others were drawn from Transcaucasia. One of
our objectives will be to examine which of these alternatives provides
the best explanation for the numismatic data.
I am fully aware that numerous objections can be raised to my
hypothesis on theoretical grounds. The primary complaint would no
doubt be that the more or less simultaneous appearance of hoards with
similar coins in two regions does not conclusively prove that the coins
reached one area by way of the other or that the hoards came from the
same source. Unfortunately, the nature of the problem and the type of
data available can not be easily adapted to formal rules of logic or
rigorous scientific proof. Scholars have not yet discovered any written
documents from this time or later which discuss the appearance of
dirham hoards in either Russia or the Caucasus. Thus, we must deal
with two distinct numismatic phenomena which have similar features
and attempt to determine if they are in some way connected. Our
hypothesis can be buttressed if we can find a development dating from
the late eighth-early ninth century which would explain why dirhams
would begin to appear in both regions at this time. In short, our hypo
thesis cannot be evaluated in the same way as an exercize in abstract logic
or a physics experiment. At best, we can show similarities that would
seem to preclude coincidence and suggest an explanation for these
similarities.
Tables 1 and 11 contain data on the dynastic composition of the early
Caucasian and Russian dirham hoards. An examination of the data
in Table 1 clearly shows that 'Abb?sid dirhams constituted the predomi
nant component in the early Caucasian hoards with the precise figure
running 80% or more. At the same time, the two earliest hoards,
Kirovabad and Georgia 780/81, form an exception to this rule. The
Kirovabad hoard, which is the very earliest from the Caucasus, contained
almost 90% Umayyad dirhams and slightly more than 10% 'Abbasid
coins. The 780/81 Georgia hoard consisted of an almost equal percentage
of Umayyad and 'Abb?sid dirhams (38% vs. 41% respectively). With
the Kariagino hoard of 782/83, the situation changes dramatically and
the era of 'Abb?sid preponderance begins.
TABLE I
THE DYNASTIC COMPOSITION OF THE EARLY CAUCASIAN

DIRHAM HOARDS EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES
*s
-Z8
&?
Kirovabad 771/72 158 89 11
Georgia 780/81 32 38 41 13
Kariagino 782/83 93 10 89
Georgia 785/86 35 3 97
Tauz 786/87 10 100
Verkhnii Adiaman 786/87 10 20 80
Sepnekeran 787/88 22 14 86
Agdam 803/04 59 3 81
Petrovskoe 804/05 34 3 91
Agdam 804/05 68 9 81
Pshaveli 807/08 122 4 94
Arkhava 811/12 250
The first dirham hoard to be deposited in the Caucasus was over

whelmingly composed of older Umayyad dirhams to which a relatively
few newer 'Abb?sid dirhams had been added. It seems likely that this
hoard was either put together over a long period of time or was formed
by combining a larger group of older coins which had been preserved in
tact with a small group of newer coins. In any event, it would appear
that the Umayyad dirhams for this hoard initially were gathered in the
Near East and then transported to Transcaucasia. The most recent
'Abb?sid dirhams came from Arr?n and Arm?n?yah in the Transcaucasus
which indicates that they were added to the hoard just before its burial.
If the Umayyad dirhams had come from within Transcaucasia before
749/50, then we would expect to find Umayyad hoards here. Since such
hoards are extremely rare (only one small Umayyad hoard of 717 has
been found to date), Umayyad dirhams were apparently only brought
into Transcaucasia during the 'Abb?sid era. In other words, the large
percentage of Umayyad dirhams in the earliest dirham hoards from the
Caucasus can best be explained by the monetary situation in the Near
East between ca. 750 and ca. 770. Umayyad dirhams formed a very
significant number of the first dirhams exported from here to Trans
caucasia.
Following the transitional 780/81 hoard from Georgia which had
fewer and more recent Umayyad dirhams, the Caucasian hoards fall
into the basic pattern of predominantly new 'Abb?sid coins. This
pattern, which emerged already in the early 78o's, suggests that within
a decade, ca. 770 to ca. 780, the number of Umayyad dirhams in circul
ation within the Near East had declined precipitously. In any case,
'Abb?sid predominance, which is such a pronounced feature, only appear
ed after dirhams had begun to reach Transcaucasia. Once 'Abb?sid
predominance had been established, it remained remarkably constant
for the next quarter century. Excluding the two mini-hoards (Tauz
and Verkhnii Adiaman) whose small size can easily distort figures, the
percentage of 'Abb?sid dirhams ranged between 81% and 97% with no
evident trend one way or another developing during this period of about
25 years. The percentage of 'Abbasid dirhams at the start of this time
(Kariagino, 782/83) was almost identical with the percentage at the end
(Pshaveli, 807/08), 89% vs. 94%. 'Abbasid dirhams were more than
just a majority of the coins in the early Caucasian hoards after the early
780's; they consistently constituted over 80 % of the entire hoard.
With the exception of the mini-hoard from Tauz, all the early Cau
casian dirham hoards contained Umayyad coins. After the two earliest
hoards with their large percentage of Umayyad dirhams, the figures for
the rest of the hoards are more modest. The highest figures come from
two small hoards (Verkhnii Adiaman and Sepnekeran) where one or two
coins can easily distort proportions. In the six other, larger hoards,
the percentage of Umayyad dirhams varies between 3 % and 10 %. Thus,
in the early hoards from the Caucasus which were overwhelmingly
composed of 'Abb?sid coins, a small percentage (10 % or less) of Umayyad
dirhams consistently was present.
Table 11 shows the dynastic composition of the earliest dirham hoards
from Russia. 'Abb?sid dirhams clearly predominate; they constitute
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 4II
by far the largest component in every single hoard and a clear majority
of all coins in all but two hoards. Even in these two hoards (Kniashchino
and Tsimliansk), they are very close to forming a majority (48% and
50% respectively). At the same time, the percentage of 'Abbasid dir
hams does not consistently exceed 80%. In fact, only the two earliest
Russian hoards contain over 80 % 'Abb?sid dirhams. The percentage in
two of the next three hoards then drops sharply to about 50%. While
the Staraia Ladoga hoard stands alone chronologically (787), the four
hoards from the period 806-810 display great fluctuations. Thus, while
we cannot tell how typical the Staraia Ladoga hoard is with its 100%
'Abbasid composition, the first decade of the ninth century is characteriz
ed by great differences in the percentage of 'Abb?sid dirhams. Kri
vianskaia (806) and Kniashchino (808), while only two years apart, have
'Abb?sid components that are 36% apart. After 810, however, the zig
zag pattern abruptly ceases. There is a relatively small range in the
'Abb?sid component of the hoards from 810/11-813 (67%-8o%). The
early Russian hoards thus begin in the 780's with an isolated all-'Abb?sid
hoard, experience great fluctuations in the percentage of 'Abb?sid dirhams
between 805-810, and then run consistently between 2/3 and 4/5 'Abb?sid.
TABLE II
THE DYNASTIC COMPOSITION OF THE EARLY RUSSIAN
DIRHAM HOARDS EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES17
<0
SZ
2
z c
*fl5 O
Staraia Ladoga 787 31 100

Krivianskaia 806 83 2 1 2 10 84
Kniashchino 808 93 11 24 2 14 1 48
Zavalishino 810 52 4 8 4 6 4 69 4 2
R1!Ssk 809'"> 4810 10

2 50
2 19 6
Khitrovka 810/11 12 8 17 75
Nizhnie Novoselki 811/12 118 4 14 11 3 77
Kremlevskii 812/13 76 11 1 11 1 1 7 1 67
"'Ac? 813 206 + +

Ugodichi 813 127 4 2 3
1 1,
5 11 1 70
7 5 80
Umayyad dirhams are present in all but tw

The exceptions are the all-'Abb?sid 787 hoa
small mini-hoard from Khitrovka. It would t
Umayyad dirhams were a regular feature of
412 THOMAS S. NOONAN
Table III. THE DYNASTIG COMPOSITION OF EARLY CAUCASIAN

AND RUSSIAN DIRHAM HOARDS EXPRESSED IN
PERCENTAGES ?- MAJOR VARIETIES
early ninth century. However, the percentage of Umayyad dirhams in

these hoards never exceeds 15 %. Given the small percentages involved,
it would probably be misleading to seek any important pattern in the
varying figures. Thus, aside from the Ladoga hoard, Umayyad dirhams
formed a small but consistent element in the early Russian hoards.
Table in attempts to present the data on the 'Abb?sid and Umayyad
components of the early Caucasian and Russian hoards graphically. The
anomalous Kirovabad hoard, with its large Umayyad majority, is repre
sented by a broken line. Starting with the 780/81 Georgia hoard, 'Abb?
sid dirhams consistently predominate although a small Umayyad compo
nent is usually present. The striking feature of our comparison is
probably the difference between the 'Abb?sid component in the Caucasian
and Russian hoards. With a few exceptions, this component was
normally greater in the Caucasian hoards. Starting in 782/83, all six
larger Caucasian hoards exceed 80 % while six of the nine larger Russian
hoards fall under 80%. Thus, early Caucasian and Russian dirham
hoards are characterized by a common 'Abb?sid domination. However,
there are clear differences in the degree of 'Abb?sid predominance. The
significance of these differences is no doubt subject to various inter
pretations.
The variety of lesser dynasties represented in the hoards from each
region may be more important than the differences in 'Abb?sid predom
inance. Since the Umayyad components in the early Caucasian and
Russian hoards are very comparable, the explanation for the difference
in the 'Abb?sid components lies in the larger number of dirhams from
other dynasties found in the Russian hoards. The greater diversity of
the Russian hoards is manifested in several ways. More dynasties are
represented in the average larger Russian hoard, slightly over six, than
in the average larger Caucasian hoard, about three and one-half. In
other words, while the normal Caucasian hoards only contained one or
two dynasties besides the 'Abb?sids and Umayyads, the normal Russian
hoard had coins of four other dynasties.
Coins from these other dynasties are more frequently encountered in
the early Russian dirham hoards. Of the nine larger Russian hoards,
eight contained Sasanian drachms while these drachms were present in
only four of the nine larger Caucasian hoards. Comparable figures are:
Arab-Sasanian, 2 Russian hoards vs. 1 Caucasian hoard; Tabarist?n,
7 Russian vs. 5 Caucasian; Umayyad governors, 2 in each; Spanish
Umayyads, 2 Russian vs. o Caucasian; Governors of Tudgha, 4 Russian
vs. o Caucasian; Ispahbad, 1 Russian vs. 0 Caucasian; Idrisid, 8 Russian
vs. 2 Caucasian; Aghlabid, 2 Russian vs. 1 Caucasian; and, Byzantine,
1 Russian vs. 0 Caucasian. More Russian hoards contain a greater
variety of coins.
Finally, the coins from other dynasties are quite often present in
significant quantities (10% or more) in the Russian hoards. There are
three such hoards with Sasanian drachms, three with Tabarist?n coins,
one with Governor of Tudgha dirhams, and three with Idrisid dirhams.
We thus find ten cases where a Russian hoard contained 10% or more
non-'Abb?sid, non-Umayyad dirhams. There are no such cases among
the Caucasian hoards. These differences in the "lesser" dynasties (a
25-1
SASANIAN
TABARIST?N
IDR?SID
15H
10H
<=> ?J
OO ^J
^ CO OO O ? \?* lac
? _? 03
cvi +-?
S ^ E ^D OO
00 oo oo OJ oo > _
w ? c>o
30 > ? >* 00
oo u co Z co_r
k- co cq >_ ? m ca -?-. ?_ t=
o a> do + * -o jc= eo .2 " >
a> txo co -t-> *_ c: eu &0 .= z: .22 00
CD m CD H > 00 <c H < CL W i? ?? N
Table IV. THE DYNASTIC COMPOSITION OF EARLY CAUCASIAN

AND RUSSIAN DIRHAM HOARDS EXPRESSED IN
PERCENTAGES ?- LESSER VARIETIES
quantitative rather than a qualitative expression) are visually represented
in Table iv where the Sasanian, Tabarist?n, and Idrisid components of
Russian and Caucasian hoards are charted. If anything, Table iv plays
down the differences since it omits the Kirovabad hoard which consisted
of only 'Abb?sid and Umayyad dirhams. It is interesting to note that
the only two Caucasian hoards to follow the Russian pattern of diversity
were both discovered at Agdam. The early Russian and Caucasian
dirham hoards thus differ in the relative weight of ther non-'Abb?sid,
non-Umayyad components.
As we shall see, part of the difference in "lesser" dynasties can be
explained by the larger proportion of north African dirhams in the early
Russian hoards. The presence of such dirhams accounts for the large
Idrisid and smaller Aghlabid and Spanish Umayyad components in these
hoards. At the same time, the larger proportion of north African
dirhams cannot explain why Sasanian and Tabarist?n drachms, for
example, are better represented in the Russian hoards. We must thus
conclude that the early Russian hoards were more diverse than the
early Caucasian hoards; while the latter contained a larger 'Abb?sid
component, the former had relatively more coins from the "lesser"
dynasties.
TABLE V
THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITION OF EARLY CAUCASIAN

?8? ?
o E
O -M T
<u <y co o
4JO 4->
fO <u o ? -
Q OC ?? O
Kirovabad 771/72 148 20 50 12 1 4 5

Georgia 780/81 32 3 6 3 19 25 19 3 3
Kariagino 782/83 1 4 14 25 47 2
Georgia 785/86 3 26 26 31 14
Tauz 786/87 10 10 20 30 30
Verkhnii Adiaman 786/87 10 10 50 30
Sepnekeran 787/88 9 23 36 23
Agdam 803/04 5 16 39 14
Petrovskoe 804/05 21 15 38 12
Agdam 804/05 1 17 16 21 9 21
Pshaveli 807/08 120 3 3 28 6 23 33
Table v shows the chronological composition of the early di

hoards from the Caucasus. The general chronological distribution
the Caucasian hoards corresponds to their dynastic compositio
Table v shows, the Kirovabad hoard was composed in large part (
4i6 THOMAS S. NOONAN
70%) of dirhams struck at least a half-century before its date of deposit.

The many older coins in the hoard reflect its predominant Umayyad
component. The Kirovabad hoard is thus twice distinguished among
Caucasian hoards?not only do Umayyad dirhams compose the over
whelming majority of its coins, but they are also very old Umayyad
dirhams.
The 780/81 transitional hoard from Georgia reflects the shift from
Umayyad to 'Abb?sid predominance. While it contains a large Umayyad
component (38 %), most of these Umayyad coins were struck in the 73o's
and 740,s. Only 21 % of the dirhams were issued over fifty years before
the hoard's burial. At the same time, new 'Abb?sid dirhams struck in
the decade or so before deposit only constituted 6 % of the entire hoard.
While the Umayyad dirhams were not so old as in the Kirovabad hoard,
the 'Abb?sid dirhams were not so new as in succeeding hoards.
Starting with the Kariagino hoard of 782/83, the impact of 'Abb?sid
predominance becomes evident. Leaving aside the two mini-hoards,
we find that recently issued dirhams become a major and even dominant
element. In the Kariagino hoard, for example, almost half of the
50-1
</> m co 0 c/jcotoc'jcoc/ocoOcooo'ico
O O O C3 C3C3CDCr>CDCDCDC3cZ>CDCr>C>
OO CD CD ??? o^CNjro<vt-ifi(DNoocoOrt
r^ r-~ co Co
Table VI. THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITIO

DIRHAM HOARDS EXPRESSED IN PERCE
dirhams (49 %) were issued within a decade or so of the hoard's deposit.
The comparable figure for the 785/86 Georgia hoard is 45%. Never
theless, when we turn to the ninth century, great fluctuations can be
observed within this overall pattern. The four hoards from the early
ninth century were probably deposited at approximately the same time.
In the two Agdam hoards, the percentage of dirhams issued in 790 or
later was 29% and 30%. In the Petrovskoe and Pshaveli hoards, the
comparable figures were 50% and 56%. What we observe then is some
what different patterns of aging within contemporaneous Caucasian
hoards with 'Abb?sid predominance. Some of the hoards, e.g., Kariagino,
have comparatively more new 'Abb?sid dirhams while others, e.g.,
Agdam, have comparatively more older dirhams. Furthermore, as we
noted with the hoards of the early ninth century, there is no trend which
clearly distinguishes the aging patterns of the hoards of the 780's from
those of the 8oo's.
Under ideal conditions, one would expect that new dirhams would
compose the majority of the coins in a hoard and that the percentage of
older dirhams would decline in proportion to their age. Tables vi and
50-1
AGDAM, 804/05
50-1
40
PSHAVELI, 807/08
PETROVSKOE, 804/05 I
30 H
20
10 H
cot/?e/?co</>Goc/?c/?c/></?</?t/> ^* c/>'?/je/>t/jeoe/jt/jt/jc/??/)c/>t/>
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD OCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD
cd ??1 N n rr m to 1? oo co cd r?? t.O'-?CMoo'?intosoooio ???
1? r-^. i>~. r-? r^. i-?^ r-. r-. i? r--. oo oo o_ r>~ i? 1?t-^r<r-~r^r-.r-.r^.oooo
Table VII. THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITION OF EA

DIRHAM HOARDS EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAG
4i8 THOMAS S. NOONAN
vu graphically represent the chronological data on the early Caucasian

hoards. The Kariagino hoard is the only one to conform to this ideal
pattern. In fact, it is a perfect model of what one would predict theo
retically. Unfortunately, it is the only one of the eight Caucasian hoards
to behave in this way. The Kirovabad and 780/81 Georgia hoards, with
their large components of Umayyad dirhams, could be expected to
diverge from the theoretical pattern. The most striking fact is probably
that none of the five other hoards with 'Abb?sid predominance resembles
the ideal pattern. Furthermore, they diverge from the ideal in different
ways. In the 803/04 Agdam hoard, we have a pyramid?the largest
age component comes from the 780^; older as well as newer 'Abb?sid
dirhams decrease at about the same rate. The other three hoards from
the early ninth century all have a U pattern at one point or other. The U
pattern is the reverse of the pyramid; it develops when newer and older
'Abb?sid dirhams outnumber the coins from some intermediate decade
or decades. The U patterns, however, do not coincide. In the Petrov
skoe and Pshaveli hoards, the trough dates to the 780^ while in the 804/
05 Agdam hoard it originates in the 79o's. What we seem to have is
more the chance omission of dirhams rather than a shortage from a
particular decade. Furthermore, the Petrovskoe hoard follows an up and
down pattern while the Pshaveli hoard has different levels of decline from
the peaks of the 770^ and 8oo's. The 785/86 Georgia hoard is a hybrid;
it is a slightly sloping half-pyramid combined with a half-U.
TABLE VIII
THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITION OF EARLY RUSSIAN

DIRHAM HOARDS EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES18
?o
O + ? t* C <U O r? CM 00 ?a
O O) (OU O I I I I I I I I
+j 0 +-> ?-?oooooooo
to <u o?f- ?-ti-??r-c\icr>?<a-ir>ior^
Staraia Ladoga 787 31 10 10 41 38

Krivianskaia 806 79 3 1 1 1 3 5 23 34 27 3
Kniashchino 808 97 5 11 4 3 1 4 1 1 5 29 19 8 8
Zavalishino 810 46 4 4 2 2 2 28 28 9 20
Ugodichi 813 127 4 2 2 2 2 3 4 13 25 28 14 2
The above evidence indicates that there was no single chronolo

pattern or trend among the Caucasian hoards in which 'Abb?sid di
clearly predominated. The differences between and among the h
from the 780's and 8oo's demonstrate that these hoards were not
from the identical coin stock either in the Caucasus or the Near
Rather, each Caucasian hoard was composed from a somewhat diff
chronological group of 'Abb?sid dirhams. If hoards from the same
decade can differ amongst themselves and with hoards only two decades
apart in time, we should not expect contemporaneous hoards from two
distinct regions to be identical. Within the basic pattern of relatively
new 'Abb?sid dirhams, many variations appeared in the Caucasus.
Consequently, it should be no surprise, if early Russian and Caucasian
hoards had a similar origin, that they might display different patterns
within a larger common framework.
50
STARAIA LADOGA, 787 ZAVALISHINQ, 810
40
30
20
10
50
40 UGQDICHI, 813
30
20
10
50 cucdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcd
'-O'HcsiroTi'LOiONoocDO'-'
a.r-.r-.r>.r^f^f-^r-r^.r^r^.oooo
40
KNIASHCHINO, 808
30
Table IX.
20
THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITION
10 OF EARLY RUSSIAN DIRHAM HOARDS
EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES
0
, C/,>C/?cO</?C/?c/?C/'?</^C/?t',t'', .tn
O CD O O CDCDCDCDCDCD CD CD CD
?- cd ??iCNioo^fLocor-??oo .cr> CD ??
CLNrNN.rs|s.rsNNisivoooo
Data on the chronological composition of the early Russian dirham

hoards can be found in Table vin. Unfortunately, several of the early
Russian hoards have not yet been published so that we lack evidence on
the mints and dates of their coins. Table vin should be consulted in
conjunction with Table ix which presents the data visually. The
earliest Russian hoard, 787 Ladoga, comes very close to our ideal pattern.
Almost 80% of its coins were struck in the 770^ and 780^ while a
clear decline is evident for the prior two decades. The all-'Abb?sid
Ladoga hoard was composed overwhelmingly of very recently issued
dirhams.
The four Russian hoards of the early ninth century show some of the
same variations noticed among contemporaneous Caucasian hoards. The
806 Krivianskaia hoard, for example, is a good example of the pyramidal
pattern?the largest component of coins dates to the 780^ while there
are a lesser number of newer and older dirhams. The 813 Ugodichi
hoard follows the same pattern except for the fact that its peak comes in
the 790's. The 808 Kniashchino hoard has many pyramidal elements;
its large component of pre-700 drachms, however, sets it apart from all
other Russian hoards and creates a U pattern between the pre-700 era
and the 770^. The 810 Zavalishino hoard is a typical U pattern with the
relatively few dirhams of the 790^ contrasting with the larger number
of newer and older coins. As with the Caucasian hoards, one hoard's
peak is another's trough indicating chance rather than a consistent
shortage of dirhams from one particular decade. In short, no single
pattern can be observed for these hoards.
While the early ninth-century hoards consist primarily of newer
'Abb?sid dirhams, they do differ from the Ladoga hoard. The Ladoga
hoard was homogeneous dynastically and compact chronologically besides
fitting in well with our ideal pattern. The four ninth-century hoards
are much less homogeneous and much less compact. While 80% of the
Ladoga hoard comes from the two decades before its burial, only 50 % of
the early ninth-century hoards would take us back three or four decades
and, in the case of Kniashchino, 80 % would take us back to the 7io's.
The Russian hoards thus display the same diversity in their chronological
distribution as the Caucasian hoards. Under these circumstances, we
must reiterate our conclusion that it is impossible to expect contempo
raneous hoards from different regions to be identical when hoards from
the same region and time can be so varied.
If we accept the idea of fluctuations within a general framework, then
there are certain similarities between the early Caucasian and early
Russian dirham hoards. The compactness of the 787 Ladoga hoard,
for instance, is paralleled by that of the 782/83 Kariagino hoard where
72 % of the coins dated to the 760^ and 77o's. In this respect, Kariagino
is closer to the Ladoga hoard than to the 785/86 hoard from Georgia,
In the 810 Zavalishino hoard, 57 % of the coins dated to the period 780
809. The comparable figure for the 804/05 Agdam hoard was 51 % while
the percentage for each of these three decades is almost identical. In
general, the bulk of the dirhams in the early ninth-century hoards were
issued after 769. The figures for the Russian hoards are 87 %, 64 %, 85 %,
and 82% compared with 76%, 86%, 67%, and 90% for the Caucasian
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA
TABLE X
THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EARLY CAUCASIAN

5-? .2
*3 X S <3 u ?o v>
?? ?. ? C ?
Kirovabad 771/72 167 52 1 3 12 4 1 4 13

Kariagino 782/83 91 75 2 7 13
Tauz 786/87 10 70 10 10 10
Verkhnii
Adiaman 786/87 62 15 23
Sepnekeran 787/88 68 18 5
Agdam 803/04 21 47 14 5
Petrovskoe 804/05 28 44 25
Agdam 804/05 40 5 23 26
Pshaveli 807/08 136 37 11 28 18
Arkhava 811/12 310 3 19 19
TABLE XI
THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EARLY RUSSIAN

1A C
3 T
2? 'S ? s
S? o ** 4= 8. ?
Staraia
787 30 63 27 3 3 3
Ladoga
Krivianskaia 806 79 19 61 11 5 1 1
Kniashchino 808 73 23 27 18 1 19 4
Zavalishino 810 46 24 43 13 2 9 2 4 2
Ugodichi 813 121 27 50 12 4 2 2 2 1
422 THOMAS S. NOON AN
hoards. We can thus conclude that the sole Russian hoard of the late
eighth century is compatible with the Kariagino hoard from the Caucasus
while the hoards of both regions from the early ninth century are compa
rable in general terms and contain some of the same variations.
As a final test of the compatibility of early Caucasian and early
Russian dirham hoards, their regional distribution will be examined.
The data for the Caucasian hoards is found in Table x. As this table
demonstrates, four regions are very strongly represented: Iraq, northern
Africa, Jib?l, and Transcaucasia. By and large, the dirhams from Iraq
constitute the strongest regional component. They are present in every
hoard and always in significant numbers?the exact figures range between
1/5 and 3/4 of the entire hoard. But, as usual, there are significant
fluctuations. In the two earliest hoards, with their large Umayyad
element, Iraq dirhams are clearly the majority component. This
preponderance reflects the large output of W?sit and Mad?nat al-Sal?m
more than anything else. The commanding position of Iraq dirhams
continued in the three smaller hoards of the 780^ although it is question
able how much reliance can be placed in their data. The five hoards of
the early ninth century show a decline in the position of Iraq dirhams.
They do not constitute a majority of any hoard and in two cases are
outnumbered by north African dirhams. In the last three hoards, Iraq
dirhams compose about 40 % of each hoard but in each case there are a
very significant number of dirhams from two other regions. In general,
the preponderance of Iraq dirhams in hoards from the late eighth century
gives way to a more balanced geographical distribution in hoards from
the early ninth century.
North African dirhams form a very insignificant part of the two
earliest Caucasian hoards. However, the hoards of the early ninth
century display symptoms bordering on schizophrenia. In the 803/04
Agdam and Petrovskoe hoards, African dirhams are clearly the largest
component and come very close to forming a majority. In the other
three hoards, however, they form a much smaller proportion. In two
of these three cases, the percentage of African dirhams does not exceed
5%. If we use the percentage of African dirhams as a criterion, the
early ninth-century hoards from the Caucasus can be divided into two
distinct groups: those where African dirhams compose the largest com
ponent and those where they are only present in small numbers.
Jib?l is probably the region whose representation in Caucasian hoards
is most consistent. In the two earliest hoards, the number of Jib?l
dirhams is very modest, never exceeding 10%. In the five hoards of
the early ninth century, Jib?l dirhams compose from 14 % to 28 % of the
entire hoard, roughly between 1/7 and 2/7. Jib?l dirhams consistently
form a large element in these hoards but never the largest element.
Transcaucasian dirhams form slightly over 10% of the two earliest
Caucasian hoards. In the hoards from the early ninth century, we again
note some schizophrenia between the 803/04 Agdam and Petrovskoe
hoards, on the one hand, and the three remaining hoards on the other.
In the former, Transcaucasian dirhams are either a very small proportion
or absent entirely. In the latter hoards, however, they form between
18 % and 26 % of all coins. It is important to note that this division of
hoards according to Transcaucasian dirhams corresponds exactly to that
found when examining north African dirhams. In other words, we seem
to find a definite correlation: those hoards with a large percentage of
African dirhams have few or none from Transcaucasia while hoards with
a fairly significant number of Transcaucasian dirhams (1/5 to 1/4)
contain a comparatively small number of African dirhams. This corre
lation also extends to the Iraq dirhams; those hoards with a very large
north African component have significantly fewer Iraq dirhams and vice
versa. We therefore find two distinct groups among the Caucasian hoards
of the early ninth century based on their regional distribution.
The Caucasian hoards contain coins from nine other regions. How
ever, in many cases, this means only that a few dirhams from a region are
present in one or two hoards. The Kirovabad hoard has coins from
seven of these nine regions but only those from Syria are significant.
This circumstance would seem to reflect the large number of active
Umayyad mints, especially Dimashq, represented in the coin stock from
which this hoard was composed. Several areas have a few coins in three
of the five hoards from the early ninth century, but only the 9 % Taba
rist?n drachms in the 803/04 Agdam hoard seems worth noting.
Table xi contains data on the regional distribution of the early
Russian dirham hoards. As before, let us focus initially on the dirhams
from Iraq, Africa, Jib?l, and Transcaucasia. Iraq dirhams form the
preponderant component in the 787 Ladoga hoard composing almost
2/3 of all coins. This clear dominance of Iraq dirhams corresponds to
what we encountered in the two earliest Caucasian hoards. As was the
case with the Caucasian hoards, the percentage of Iraq dirhams clearly
declines in Russian hoards of the early ninth century. Instead of 2/3,
they now compose only 1/5 to 1/4 of all coins. These figures are compa
rable to those in the 803/04 Agdam and Petrovskoe hoards and are much
less than those in the other three ninth-century Caucasian hoards. The
consistency of the Russian hoards thus contrasts with the mild schizo
phrenia of the Caucasian hoards.
Some years ago, Richard Fasmer noted that one of the distinctive
characteristics of the early Russian dirham hoards was their high percent
age of north African dirhams. According to Fasmer, the decline in
the relative number of African dirhams only came in hoards whose most
recent dirham dated to ca. 825/26 or later.19 Table xi confirms Fasmer's
observation. North African dirhams composed an important part of
every early Russian hoard with the figures ranging from about 1/4 to
slightly over 3/5 of all coins. Unlike the Iraq dirhams, there is little
consistency or pattern with those from north Africa. The 787 Ladoga
and 808 Kniashchino hoards contain the exact same percentage, 27%.
The percentages in the other three hoards are all greater, but also vary
considerably amongst themselves ranging from 43% to 61%. North
African dirhams constituted a very significant although highly variable
component of the Russian hoards. Despite this fluctuation, the 803/04
Agdam and Petrovskoe hoards are clearly closer to the Russian hoards
than to the other early ninth-century Caucasian hoards in this respect.
We shall return to the problem of north African dirhams later and
attempt to explain why they were so important in all Russian and some
Table XII. THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

OF EARLY CAUCASIAN DIRHAM
HOARDS EXPRESSED IN
PERCENTAGES
Caucasian hoards, but composed only a relatively small part of other
Caucasian hoards.
Aside from the Ladoga hoard, where their representation was minimal,
Jib?l dirhams consistently formed between 10% and 20% of the early
ninth-century Russian hoards. Of the three main regional components
in these hoards, Jib?l dirhams unquestionably had the most uniform and
equal distribution. We have already noted the same consistency of
Jib?l dirhams in the ninth-century Caucasian hoards although the
figures there were slightly higher on average (14% to 28%). Using this
one criterion, it could be argued that the early Russian and early Cau
casian hoards were either derived from the same general source, a source
2 er ?- ?5
'ZZ j= to "??
? < =i W H- 5? -^ K IT X CO 5 W CO
Table XIII. THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

OF EARLY RUSSIAN DIRHAM
HOARDS EXPRESSED IN
PERCENTAGES
? < -^ w 1? ac-Si? u. a: w s: ? co
containing on average between io % to 25 % Jib?l dirhams, or that Jib?l

dirhams were added in roughly comparable quantities to the coins being
exported to Russia and the Caucasus. In any event, after noting the
sharp differences with respect to African dirhams, it is well to remember
the great similarity with respect to Jib?l dirhams. Those who seek
exact replication may find some comfort here.
While present in every Russian hoard, the number of Transcaucasian
dirhams was always minimal and never exceeded 5%. The consistency
is probably just as important as the quantity. The early Russian
hoards, both in the late eighth and the early ninth centuries, were derived
from a coin stock which had a small percentage of very well distributed
Transcaucasian dirhams. This circumstance might well point to an area
near the Transcaucasus; Transcaucasian dirhams could easily become
part of the coins in circulation there while never reaching large numbers.
The 803/04 Agdam and Petrovskoe hoards once again are closer to the
Russian hoards than the other Caucasian hoards. Consequently, we
must seriously consider the possibility that the origins of some Caucasian
and all Russian hoards were different from those of other Caucasian
hoards.
When we examine the other regions represented in the early Russian
hoards, a few minor points emerge. Tabarist?n drachms constitute
about 1/5 of the Kniashchino hoard, but they compose a much smaller
part of the other four hoards, being only minimally present in two. This
"aberration" once again confirms the great variations which do take
place within the hoards from a given area. The existence of a small
Tabarist?n component in all the other ninth-century Russian hoards
suggests a coin stock with a small number of well distributed Tabarist?n
coins. The Near East, especially Iraq and Iran, obviously comes to
mind when seeking to find a location where such a coin stock might well
exist. The proximity of these two areas to Transcaucasia, whose coins
parallel those of Tabarist?n in the ninth-century Russian hoards, strength
ens the assumption. As before, the 803/04 Agdam and Petrovskoe hoards
are fully compatible with contemporaneous Russian hoards; both groups
have a small Tabarist?n component.
The various Russian hoards with a minimal component of coins from
other regions do not appear to have great significance. For example,
two of the Russian hoards have a few dirhams from Transoxiana while
no such dirhams are found in the Caucasian hoards. Is this difference
the product of chance or does it reflect some important distinction in
the way the hoards from the different regions were composed or transport
ed? The number of ninth-century hoards from both regions with
Khur?s?n dirhams is identical. Is this coincidence or significance?
Kirm?n is represented in more Caucasian than Russian hoards. What
can be made of this fact? The small number of coins involved, often
only one or two, has led me to discount the possible evidence to be drawn
from these other regions. At best, the evidence could only be used in
conjunction with other, more satisfactory data in order to confirm
conclusions drawn from that data.
At this point, I should like to summarize our findings on regional
distribution and compare the early Russian and Caucasian hoards in
this respect. To facilitate this task, Tables xii and xin portray our
data on regional distribution in a more graphic form. The larger hoards
from both areas are composed primarily of coins from four regions: Iraq,
Africa, Jib?l, and Transcaucasia. The only other region which might be
included is Tabarist?n and then only for the early ninth century. The
dirhams from Jib?l constitute the single most common feature among
all these hoards. They form a small percentage of all the late eighth
century hoards (3 %-y %) and a more significant percentage of all early
ninth-century hoards, n%-i8% in Russian hoards and i4%-28% in
Caucasian hoards.
When we go beyond the Jib?l dirhams, significant differences appear.
These differences are not entirely between Russian and Caucasian hoards
as one might expect. Instead, two ninth-century hoards from the
Caucasus diverge from all the other early hoards of this area and in their
regional composition come very close to the contemporaneous Russian
pattern. The Russian pattern of the early ninth century was already
foreshadowed in the 787 Ladoga hoard which was composed of about
1/4 north African dirhams. This figure never declines in the early ninth
century hoards and in one case reaches 61%. The large African com
ponent meant a reduction in the percentage of Iraq dirhams to a level of
20%-25% and a minimal Transcaucasian presence, i%-5%. The
majority Caucasian pattern of the early ninth century was also fore
shadowed in the earliest hoards from this area. Here, we find a very
large Iraq component which clearly predominates. Transcaucasian
dirhams constitute a significant percentage while there are only a minimal
number of north African coins. The majority Caucasian hoards of the
early ninth century are distinguished by a very high percentage of Iraq
dirhams (37%~42%), a significant number of Transcaucasian coins
(i8%-26%), and relatively few north African dirhams (3%-n%).
The minority hoards from the Caucasus (803/04 Agdam and Petrov
skoe) are in every respect closer to the contemporaneous Russian hoards
than to the majority Caucasian hoards. In fact, the regional distribution
of the 810 Zavalishino and 813 Ugodichi hoards is almost identical with
these two Caucasian hoards: Iraq?24% and 27% vs. 21% and 28%;
north Africa?43 % and 50 % vs. 47 % and 44 %; Jib?l?13 % and 12 % vs.
14 % and 25 %; Transcaucasia?2 % and 4 % vs. 5 % and 0 %; and, finally,
Tabarist?n?9% and 2% vs. 9% and 3%. This similarity is so striking
that it clearly raises the possibility that in the early ninth century, all
Russian and some Caucasian hoards had a common origin or source. In
any case, we cannot view the hoards from the Caucasus as forming one
homogeneous mass. These hoards, it turns out, were quite different.
Let us now turn to the problem of why north African dirhams were
a significant component in all Russian and some Caucasian hoards while
constituting a minimal part of the other Caucasian hoards. These
differences are graphically depicted in Table xiv. The answer, at least
for some of the hoards, emerges if we examine the oldest 'Abb?sid dirham
from each African mint in the early Russian hoards:
Staraia Ladoga Zavalishino

al-fAbbas?yah, 776/77 al-'Abbas?yah, 772/73
Ifr?q?yah, 785/86 Ifr?q?yah, 792/93
Krivianskaia Tudgha, 776/77
al-'Abb?siyah, 769/70 Wal?la, 789/90
Ifr?q?yah, 791/92 Ugodichi
Misr, 796/97 al-'Abbas?yah, 776 ?yy
Wal?la, 790/91 Ifr?q?yah, 781/82
Tudgha, 792/93 Tudgha, 771/72
Kniashchino Wal?la, 802
al-eAbbas?yah, 776/77
Ifr?q?yah, 783/84
Bad'a, 784/85
These figures demonstrate very clearl

that the earliest post-Umayyad nort
African dirhams found in Russian
hoards date from the 77o's. In other
words, it was only in the 770% at th
very earliest, that north African di
hams could have reached the Near
East and become part of the coin stoc
from which the early Russian hoard
were formed. The Russian hoards,
which were put together in the 780^
and later, thus reflect a period whe
north African dirhams were already
<=> ir> becoming a significant factor in the
Near Eastern coin stock.
?co| eo
w E5> gE~;
?c &o ac se: i??4
Table XIV. THE PERCENTAGE OF AFRICAN

DIRHAMS IN EARLY CAUCASIAN
AND RUSSIAN DIRHAM HOARDS
Comparable data for the Caucasian hoards is as follows:
Kirovabad Kariagino
none
al-'Abbas?yah, 769/70
Agdam, 803/04
al-'Abbas?yah, 777/78
Ifr?q?yah, 780/81
Tudgha, 790/91
Misr, 798/99
Petrovskoe
al-eAbbas?yah, 780/81
Ifr?q?yah, 781/82
Bad'a, 792/93
Agdam, 804/05 Arkhava
al-'Abb?siyah, 787/88 Ifr?q?yah, 781/82
Ifr?q?yah, 782/83
Wal?la, 790/91
This data confirms our conclusion drawn from the early Russian hoards,
namely, that north African dirhams could only have begun to reach the
Near East in the 770^. Furthermore, the north African dirhams reach
ing the Near East at this time seem to have come primarily from one
mint, i.e., al-'Abbas?yah. The number of dirhams from Tudgha to reach
the Near East seems to have been comparatively small. Dirhams from
the other major north African mint, Ifr?q?yah, could only have appeared
in the Near East in the early 780^. Since half of the Caucasian hoards
were composed by the late 780^, they were apparently drawn from a coin
stock in which north African dirhams did not yet constitute a significant
element. The bulk of the coins in these early Caucasian hoards came, as
would be expected, from neighboring Iraq.
In addition to the general chronological considerations, there are more
specific factors which apply to these five hoards. As we have already
seen, about 90% of the Kirovabad hoard was composed of pre-'Abb?sid
dirhams, i.e., dirhams struck long before north African dirhams reached
the Near East in large quantities. Given the large number of older coins
in this hoard, it is not surprising to find so few north African 'Abb?sid
dirhams in it.
An examination of the 'Abb?sid dirhams in the Kariagino hoard
indicates that the dirhams from all non-Transcaucasian mints were struck
in 778/79 or earlier. The most recent dirhams in this hoard come from
Arm?n?yah and were thus most probably mixed with the other dirhams
after they had reached the Caucasus. Apparently, north African
'Abb?sid dirhams had not yet reached the Near East in significant
quantities by the late 770^.
The hoards from Tauz, Verkhnii Adiaman, and Sepnekeran are all
small to start with so we cannot be sure how representative they are.
Furthermore, both the Tauz and Verkhnii Adiaman hoards are composed
primarily of non-Transcaucasian dirhams struck by 780 or so to which
slightly later dirhams from a Transcaucasian mint (al-H?r?niyah) have
been added. Thus, the bulk of the coins in these mini-hoards may have
reached the Transcaucasus and circulated there briefly before being
buried. Finally, it is difficult to say how much faith we can place in the
few dirhams from the Sepnekeran hoard which have been preserved. It
is thus possible to find reasons for the paucity or absence of north African
dirhams in the five Caucasian hoards dating to the late eighth century.
But, I am not certain that these reasons completely explain why the
earliest Russian hoard, Staraia Ladoga, which dates to almost the exact
same time as the three early mini-hoards from the Transcaucasus, should
have 27 % African dirhams while the mini-hoards do not contain even a
single north African dirham.
When we turn to the five Caucasian hoards from the early ninth
century, the comparable Russian hoards would lead one to expect to
find a sizeable percentage of African dirhams in each. In fact, two of
these five (Petrovskoe and 803/04 Agdam) do have such a concentration.
Therefore, we should attempt to see if there are any special circumstances
which might explain the low percentages in the other three hoards. The
Agdam hoard of 804/05 contains four north African dirhams of the 780^
and 790's. At the same time, its most recent coins (800 and later) come
from Transcaucasia and Jib?l. These dirhams suggest that the hoard
as a whole might have been put together from dirhams circulating in the
Transcaucasus and neighboring Jib?l rather than in Iraq.
Unfortunately, the information at my disposal concerning the dates
of the dirhams in the Pshaveli hoard is incomplete. The available data
nevertheless prompts several observations. First of all, this hoard does
consist of 11% north African dirhams. While this figure is not compa
rable to those found in the early Russian hoards, it is significantly greater
than that found in seven of the eight other hoards from the Transcau
casus. Secondly, the Pshaveli hoard seems to share many attributes
with the 804/05 Agdam hoard, i.e., many very recent Transcaucasian
dirhams and a comparable percentage of Iraq and Jib?l dirhams. We can
thus conjecture that this hoard was composed in the Transcaucasus from
coins circulating there and in adjacent provinces, but with evidence of
greater contact with Iraq.
While our information about the Arkhava hoard is less than optimum,
it does not suggest either a hoard which was put together in the Trans
caucasus from the coins available there nor does it have more than a
minimal representation of north African dirhams. The hoard, however,
is somewhat unique: it is the only hoard found along the western Trans
caucasian river basin and it is the only hoard which seems to have
contained dinars originally.
The special reasons which might explain the paucity of north African
dirhams in the three Caucasian hoards of the early ninth century may not
be completely convincing. It is, of course, tempting to attribute the
divergent percentage of African dirhams to different areas in which the
Caucasian and Russian hoards were composed or to different routes by
which they reached their find-spots. This approach, however, only
seems to have limited applicability. As we shall see, the same route was
apparently used in the export of the earliest dirhams to both Trans
caucasia and European Russia. Non-Transcaucasian dirhams may have
circulated in the Caucasus for some time before being deposited, but
originally they were drawn from the same general Near Eastern coin
stock as the early Russian hoards. And, there is no reason to believe that
representative coins in circulation in the Near East, especially in Iraq
and Jib?l, would be so divergent if the coins constituted a true random
sample. In short, one is forced to the conclusion that there must have
been some conscious, non-random factor which best explains why north
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 4SI
African dirhams were always exported to Russia in significant quantities
but usually only appeared in Transcaucasia in small numbers.
In his study of the medieval Russian monetary system, V. L. Ianin
uncovered some very interesting metrological information about the
earliest dirhams to reach European Russia. The norm for 325 north
African dirhams from the period 769-826 which were weighed was between
2.7 and 2.8 grams. On the other hand, the norms for 'Abb?sid dirhams
from Near Eastern mints which were struck during this same period was
2.8 to 2.9 grams. Thus, the earliest 'Abb?sid dirhams issued in the Near
East consistently weighed .1 gram or so more than dirhams of the same era
struck in northern Africa.20
Since the weight of coins was frequently checked, this difference of
around .1 gram between the typical north African and Near Eastern
dirham was not likely to go unnoticed. It would not take very long for
people within the Near Eastern provinces of the caliphate to learn that
the north African dirham was probably worth slightly less than the Near
Eastern dirham. Therefore, it is quite likely that the inhabitants of
Transcaucasia were aware of the difference and proved reluctant to accept
this slightly lighter north African dirham. On the other hand, the
peoples of European Russia, living outside the caliphate, were less attuned
to the finer distinctions between dirhams and would thus not share this
aversion to north African dirhams. We can consequently envision a
situation wherein north African dirhams sent to the Near East as tribute
and as payment for debts were not universally welcomed as currency in
other parts of the caliphate because their value would usually be less than
that of an ordinary dirham. However, the distinction was not so great
that north African dirhams could not be used in foreign trade.
It might be argued that the weight differential between north African
and Near Eastern dirhams was not sufficient to cause discrimination
against the former. Furthermore, since dirhams were easily weighed,
any shortfall in the north African coins would quickly be detected and
compensation made by adding extra dirhams. In other words, 100 Near
Eastern dirhams might weigh 285 grams while 100 north African coins
would be 275 grams. This difference could be quickly determined and
remedied by adding another 3.6 north African dirhams to that pile.
Roughly speaking, 29 average African dirhams would weigh the equivalent
of 28 average Near Eastern dirhams. Thus, the difference in weight
might not have been the crucial factor in creating a resistance to the
acceptance of north African dirhams in the Transcaucasus.
Perhaps the best explanation can be found in the x-ray fluorescence
analysis of 200 dirhams from medieval Polish hoards which was conducted
by Zofia Stos-Fertner.21 This study clearly suggests that north African
dirhams were, on average, less fine than those from the Near East at the
very time when north African 'Abb?sid coins first began to reach the
Near East. In Table xv, Part A, Stos-Fertner's data on 9 north African
dirhams from the mid-770's to mid-78o's shows that the silver content
ranged between a high of 92.1 % and a low of 81.2 %. Six of the 9 north
African dirhams were composed of less than 90 % silver and the average
silver content was 87.5%. The north African dirhams also tended to
weigh between 2.55 and 2.65 grams. Only one coin (2.71) exceeded this
range while only one fell below it. The average weight was 2.57 grams.
We thus find that the average north African dirham studied from the
period in question consisted of 2.25 grams silver (2.57 x .875).
TABLE XV
THE SILVER CONTENT OF VARIOUS DIRHAMS
(776/77-786/87)22
Weight % Ag Total Ag Weight

(grams) (grams)
A. North Africa
Wania, ? 2.56 83.8 2.15
al-rAbb?siyah, 776/77 2.57 81.2 2.09
782/83 2.54 88.5 2.25
782/83 2.71 86.5 2.34
782/83 2.61 92.0 2.40
783/84 2.64 92.1 2.43
787/88 2.63 90.4 2.38
774/ 5-785/ 6 2.65 83.4 2.21
Ifr?q?yah, 787/88 2.23 89.8 2.00
B. Near East
?rm?nTyah, 778/79 2.85 97.7 2.78
AdharblyjSn, 783/84 2.84 89.3 2.54
M?d?nat al-Sal?m, 776/77 2.82 99.1 2.79
778/79 2.85 97.5 2.78
778/79 2.76 97.2 2.68
778/79 2.92 98.5 2.88
782/83 2.86 97.8 2.80
783/84 2.80 91.6 2.56
784/85 2.52 88.4 2.23
al-Basra, 776/77 2.82 97.1 2.74
776/77 2.83 99.0 2.80
783/84 2.85 85.7 2.44
al-Muhammad?yah, 776/77 2.61 97.7 2.55
776/77 2.45 96.2 2.36
782/83 2.83 92.8 2.63
782/83 2.83 95.3 2.70
783/84 2.90 93.3 2.71
784/85 2.87 97.6 2.80
784/85 2.71 92.8 2.51
Kirman, 783/84 88.5 2.44
N?s?b?r, 782/83 93.6 2.63
Part B of Table xv gives Stos-Fertner's data on 21 Near Eastern

dirhams struck at the very same period. These dirhams, which come
from 7 Near Eastern mints, are normally composed of over 90 % silver.
Seventeen of the 21 exceed 90% and twelve exceed 95%. Of the four
dirhams which were less than 90% fine, none was less than 85%. The
average silver content of these 21 silver dirhams was 94.6 %. A majority
of the Near Eastern dirhams (fifteen or 71 %) weighed at least 2.8 grams.
Of the other six, three exceeded 2.7 grams. The average weight of the
21 Near Eastern dirhams was 2.78 grams. The average Near Eastern
dirham studied of this period consisted of 2.63 grams of silver (2.78 X
.946).
2.5~
s\lprii|VlJi
NORTH
AFRICAN NEAR EASTERN DIRHAMS
DIRHAMS
Table XVI. THE TOTAL SILVER CONTENT (IN GRAMS) OF THIRTY DIRHAMS
OF THE MID-770S TO MID-78?S
The average Near Eastern dirham studied from the mid-77o's to

mid-780's was clearly finer (94.6% silver vs. 87.5%) and heavier
(2.78 grams vs. 2.57 grams) than the comparable north African dirham
studied. In short, the average Near Eastern dirham of this time had
more total silver and, consequently, was more valuable than the average
north African dirham (2.63 grams silver per dirham vs. 2.25 grams), as
can be readily seen from Table xvi. The difference was significant,
.4 grams per coin. It was also fairly representative of the differences
likely to be found between typical coins?19 of the 21 Near Eastern
dirhams had more total silver than the north African dirham with the
most silver and sixteen had at least .1 gram more.
Naturally, we should like to have data on much more than just
thirty dirhams. A larger number of samples would lessen the chances
of having the data distorted by one of a few abnormal coins. At the same
time, Stos-Fertner's findings seem to be in general accord with the data
on S?m?nid dirhams published by Davidovich and the data on Umayyad
dirhams published by Caley.23 Thus, I see no reason, at this point, to
discount the evidence of Stos-Fertner. It appears to be reliable and
consistent with other data.
While I cannot cite specific literary evidence, my suspicion is that
those people within the caliphate familar with dirhams at the start of
the last quarter of the eighth century probably knew that north African
dirhams tended to be less fine. While the government in Baghdad may
have been obliged to accept these dirhams, there was no reason why
others had to follow suit and thus risk the loss of almost one-half gram
of silver per coin. Consequently, a resistance to north African dirhams
in a region such as Transcaucasia is both natural and intelligible. On the
other hand, the north African 'Abb?sid dirhams were close enough to the
Near Eastern dirhams so that foreigners, unaware of their lesser fineness,
would probably accept them at par value.
A solution to the mystery concerning the different percentages of
north African dirhams in early Caucasian and Russian hoards can thus
be advanced. This difference is due, to some extent, to the time when
north African dirhams initially reached the Near East. Many early
Caucasian hoards were composed before north African dirhams reached
the Near East in large numbers. But, this difference resulted primarily
from a resistance to the less fine, slightly lighter and hence less valuable
north African dirham in Transcaucasia. The difference can therefore
be attributed to conscious discrimination and not some unexplicable
aberration in the random sample of coins circulating in the Near East.
At this point, our comparative analysis of the earliest dirham hoards

from Russia and the Caucasus needs to consider the contemporaneous
hoards from Central Asia and the Near East. In other words, a thorough
examination of our hypothesis must take into account a potential alter
native route or source for the early Russian hoards as well as the region
most likely to have exported dirhams to the Caucasus in the late eighth
and early ninth centuries. Does the evidence from Central Asia suggest
that the earliest Russian hoards were transported via Transoxiana? Do
the early Caucasian and/or Russian dirham hoards seem to have originat
ed in the Near East? Unfortunately, the data from Central Asia and the
Near East is neither as abundant nor as readily accessible as that from
Russia and the Caucasus. Consequently, the evidence presented here is
derived from a review of the limited materials available to me and does
not pretend to be complete. We can only hope that those who have
direct access to all the numismatic materials may one day produce a
comprehensive catalogue of the eighth and ninth-century dirham hoards
from Central Asia and the Near East.
Numismatic studies of medieval Central Asia have focused, for the
most part, on the Khw?razm and Sogdian coins of the preceding era24
as well as the coinage of the S?m?nids (late ninth-tenth century) and later
dynasties.25 The numismatic history of Central Asia in the second-half
of the eighth and early ninth centuries appears to have been relatively
neglected. Nevertheless, studies of this period point to several character
istics.26 Most of the coins in circulation seem to have been struck
locally. There are, however, several varieties of these local coins.
Bukhara coins modeled after Sasanian drachms of Bahram/Vaxahram v
(420-438) were issued by the local ruler, the Bukh?r-Khud?, in the pre
'Abbasid era. Some of these coins had legends in Sogdian while others
were bilingual?Pehlevi and Sogdian. Under the 'Abb?sids, the local
Arab governors began to issue coins with Arabic legends, either bilingual
(Sogdian and Arabic) or entirely in Arabic. All of these coins are
considered drachms of one type or another, Bukh?r-Khud?t or 'Abb?sid.
Finally, we see the striking of normal caliphate dirhams (2.97 grams) in
Samarqand (767/68) and Bukhara (765/66) although they were not
issued on a regular basis by these mints until 790 and 808 respectively.
Ernazarova, with good reason, argues that the local drachms of
Bahram v formed the basis of monetary circulation in Central Asia during
the eighth century while the coins issued by the local 'Abb?sid governors,
the so-called 'Abb?sid drachms, were most numerous in the finds from
Afrasiab (the fortress of Samarqand) and vicinity.27 In addition, Masson
concluded that the paucity of Central Asian finds of regular dirhams issued
in other parts of the caliphate indicated that their circulation did not
become widespread in Central Asia until the very end of the eighth
century.28 Thus, the silver coin stock of Transoxiana until the early
ninth century was apparently characterized by a relative abundance of
local coins based on the Sasanian drachm and very few post-reform dir
hams, particularly those issued elsewhere in Islam.
The hoards of silver coins found in Central Asia during the eighth and
early ninth centuries are listed in Appendix iv. Of the six hoards of
this time from Transoxiana, we can safely discount the four dirhams found
at Guzar (No. i). This hoard, or, more properly speaking, mini-hoard, is
so small that it is of very little scientific value other than to show that a
few eighth-century dirhams, Umayyad as well as 'Abb?sid, did reach
beyond the Oxus/Amu Darya by the very end of the eighth century. The
two hoards of the early ninth century recently reported from the excava
tions at Afrasiab (No. 4 and 5) have great potential significance. Unfor
tunately, I have not been able to uncover any subsequent analysis of
these hoards beyond the initial brief notice. As a result, there is no way
of knowing precisely what types of dirhams were contained in them.
Were they composed of regular 'Abb?sid dirhams struck outside of
Transoxiana or were they really the so-called cAbb?sid drachms that
were issued in Transoxiana by local officials up to about the time of al
Arn?n?29 In either case, the publication of these two hoards will be of
great value.
A current description of eighth-century hoards of silver coins from
Transoxiana must be based primarily on the three hoards with more than
a few coins for which we have more abundant information (No. 2, 3, 6).
The first of these three hoards (No. 2) consisted of six Umayyad dirhams
and twelve local Bukhara drachms. While this hoard is small, it does
point to two possible conclusions: 1) regular caliphate dirhams from
elsewhere tended to be deposited along with the local drachms, and 2)
the local drachms predominated in these mixed hoards. The second
hoard (No. 3) appears to confirm both conclusions. The short account
thus far published indicates that the approximately 180 coins examined
were regular caliphate dirhams and Bukh?r-Khud?t drachms. While the
author does not give the percentage of each type, it would be reasonable
to assume that the latter prevailed. Thus, regular dirhams were buried
together with local drachms and the local coins probably formed the
larger component. The last of the three hoards (No. 6) is small (only
ten coins) and contained local 'Abb?sid drachms exclusively. It seems
to bear out the predominance of local silver coins as well as the paucity
of imported dirhams.
While the evidence on eighth-century hoards from Transoxiana is
not as abundant as one would like, the data we do possess supports the
observations on Central Asian coinage of this period made by Ernazarova
and Masson. Up until the ninth century, the local silver coinage was
evidently predominant while dirhams brought from elsewhere in the
caliphate apparently composed only a relatively small part of the coins in
circulation. This situation explains why we have mixed hoards in which
local drachms outnumber imported dirhams and why some drachm hoards
do not contain any dirhams.
The most important conclusion to be drawn from our limited evidence
on the eighth-century hoards from Transoxiana is that these hoards differ
very fundamentally from contemporaneous hoards in the Caucasus and
Russia. The latter two groups, despite some variations, were composed
primarily of fairly recently minted 'Abb?sid dirhams struck in four main
regions. The hoards from Central Asia, on the contrary, are distinguished
by a preponderance of locally minted drachms which are sometimes
mixed with a lesser quantity of dirhams originating outside Transoxiana.
Given these profound differences, we can only conclude that the earliest
dirham hoards from Russia were not exported via Transoxiana. If the
Russian hoards were composed, in toto or in part, from the Central Asian
coin stock, then we could justifiably expect that the hoards found in both
regions would have certain basic similarities and that the Russian hoards
would contain some of the Bukhara and 'Abb?sid drachms characteristic
of Transoxiana in the eighth century. The data currently available
forces us to rule out the Transoxianan route for the export of dirhams to
Russia in the late eighth and early ninth centuries.
During the past fifteen years, several dirham hoards of the late eighth
and early ninth centuries from various parts of the Near East have been
published. Information on these hoards is found in Appendix v. Of the
seven hoards listed, one (No. 3) is only noted for the sake of completeness.
The data about this hoard is so vague that we do not know where it was
found nor how many coins it contained. Furthermore, the coins mention
ed were all issued by the 'Abb?sid governors of Tabarist?n. While such
coins do occur in various hoards of this period, a hoard of any size compos
ed entirely of these half-dirhams would certainly be an anomaly. In
short, it seems most appropriate not to include this hoard in our analysis
until more information becomes available.
While we would naturally desire as much data as possible, the other
six hoards seem to provide both geographical and chronological balance.
They come from such diverse parts of the Near East as Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Consequently, we can form some idea of
the general characteristics of the Near Eastern coin stock as opposed to
the features of any one given region. We have one hoard from the 780^,
one from the 790's, two from the 800's, and two from the 8io's. In other
words, the hoards are fairly evenly distributed over the time period in
question. The 819/20 hoard from Iran falls just outside the temporal
boundaries employed for Russia and the Caucasus (ca. 813), but it has
been included in order to maximize our knowledge of the Near Eastern
coin stock. While the twenty-five Russian and Caucasian hoards clearly
outnumber the six Near Eastern hoards, the latter group includes some
very large hoards. The Denizbaji hoard from Turkey, for example,
contained over 2 500 dirhams, the 819/20 Iranian hoard consisted of
more than 650 coins, and the Umm Hajarah hoard from Syria was
composed of over 400 coins. The large size of the Near Eastern hoards
reduces the chance that fluctuations in a few coins could materially
distort our calculations. In short, although we do not have as many
Near Eastern hoards as we do from Russia or the Caucasus, our six hoards
are widely dispersed geographically, well distributed chronologically,
and large enough to be representative of the coin stock.
TABLE XVII
THE DYNASTIC COMPOSITION OF NEAR EASTERN DIRHAM HOARDS

OF THE LATE EIGHTH AND EARLY NINTH CENTURY
+ > a
?o a?
? 2
al-Khobar 784/8512 42 12 5 67
Nippur 793/94 76 1 11 87
Umm Hajarah 808/09 408 38 13 4 44

Kufah 808/09 174 2 1 14 80
Denizbaji 811/12 2505 3 13 79

Iran 819/20 666 + 5 91
How, then, do the Near Eastern hoards compare with those from
Russia and the Caucasus? Are the similarities sufficient to document
our hypothesis that dirhams first reached Russia by way of the Caucasus/
Caspian route? The dynastic breakdown of the Near Eastern hoards is
given in Table xvn. Perhaps the most striking dynastic aspect of these
hoards is the overwhelming predominance of 'Abb?sid dirhams in five of
the six hoards. In these five hoards, the percentage of 'Abbasid coins
began at 67 % in the 784/85 Arabian hoard and reached a high of 91 % in
the 819/20 Iranian hoard. We must also note the great consistency of
the figures from four of the hoards: 79 %, 80 %, 87 %, and 91 %. It would
thus seem fair to conclude that most Near Eastern hoards of this time were
composed overwhelmingly of 'Abb?sid dirhams with the exact figures
ranging from 2/3 to 9/10 of the entire hoard.
13
The only exception to this decisive 'Abb?sid preponderance is the

808/09 Umm Hajarah hoard. Here, 'Abb?sid dirhams, while forming
the largest group, constitute only 44 % of the entire hoard. The reason
for this low percentage, as can be readily seen, is the exceptionally large
number of Sasanian drachms in the hoard?38 % of the total. It may
be that an exceptionally large number of Sasanian coins remained in
circulation within Syria. The huge hoard from Damascus, which dated
to 749, contained 3815 coins, most of which were Umayyad (62%).
However, there were also 1 309 Sasanian drachms in the hoard or slightly
over 34% of the total.30 It would thus appear that for some unknown
reason a much greater number of Sasanian drachms continued to circu
late in Syria during the eighth and early ninth centuries than elsewhere.
If the presence of an exceptionally large quantity of Sasanian drachms
was indeed a peculiar feature of Syrian hoards, then it might be well to
recalculate our figures omitting these drachms. In this case, we arrive
at the following results: Arab-Sasanian 21 %; Umayyad 7 %; and, 'Abb?sid
71%. In other words, if we discount the unusually large Sasanian
component as a regional characteristic of Syrian hoards, then the per
centage of 'Abb?sid dirhams in the Umm Hajarah hoard becomes perfectly
compatible with the other five hoards.
'Abb?sid dirhams were thus consistently the largest dynastic compo
nent in hoards from all five regions of the Near East over all four decades
and they almost always formed the predominant element. If we consider
the Syrian exception as itself exceptional, then Near Eastern hoards were
normally 2/3 to 9/10 'Abb?sid.
Umayyad dirhams were the only other dynastic component to be
found in all the Near Eastern hoards. While the figures were not always
significant, ranging between 4% and 14%, they were very consistent.
A small number of Umayyad dirhams is always found in hoards from all
five regions over the course of forty years.
Sasanian drachms are found in half of the hoards. Aside from the
huge number in the Umm Hajarah hoard, a significant quantity only
appears in the Arabian hoard of 784/85. This might suggest that after
the 78o's, aside from Syria, Sasanian drachms began to disappear from
circulation.
The two hoards with Arab-Sasanian drachms are the same two with
a significant percentage of Sasanian coins. In other words, the circu
lation of Arab-Sasanian coins in the post-reform era may well have been
connected with the persistence of Sasanian drachms. Thus, all drachms,
outside Syria, may have slowly been removed from circulation after the
78o's.
The only other dynastic component to exceed 10 % in any one hoard
was the 12 % Tabarist?n semi-dirhams in the Arabian hoard of the 78o's.
Since the coins issued by the cAbb?sid governors of Tabarist?n were, like
Arab-Sasanian coins, based on the earlier Sasanian prototype, the Taba
rist?n coins seem to fit the pattern of these other Sasanian-type coins?
they were removed from circulation after the 780^. It is pertinent to
note that the other two hoards with Tabarist?n coins were located in
Iraq and date from the time when Tabarist?n had been brought under
the Caliph's control.
We can summarize by stating that Sasanian and Sasanian-type coins
were found in the 78o's, but after then they disappeared from circulation
almost entirely with the exception of Syria and, to a lesser extent, Iraq.
None of the other dynastic components reached 10 % of any hoard.
A small number of Idr?sid dirhams were found in three hoards. However,
there doesn't seem to be any pattern here. They are present and absent
in earlier as well as later hoards and in both Iraq hoards. A relatively
few coins from several other dynasties appear in one to three of the
hoards, but they do not seem to have any particular importance.
In addition to 'Abb?sid and Umayyad dirhams, the average Near
100 n
o
00
Table XVIII. VARIOUS DYNASTIES REPRESENTED IN

NEAR EASTERN HOARDS EXPRESSED
IN PERCENTAGES
TABLE XIX
THE CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEAR EASTERN DIRHAM HOARDS

OF THE LATE EIGHTH AND EARLY NINTH CENTURIES
O) Q)
+J O
(O O)
al-Khobar 784/85 42 17 (? -79.)

Nippur 793/94 74 4 16 41 23
Umm Hajarah 808/09 404 52 2 14 22
0 4 30 46
Kufah 808/09 174 14 (.-.84.? )
Denizbaji 811/12 2492 14 3 10 28 22 20 2
Iran 819/20 666 5 (.95.
Eastern hoard had coins from ju

figure is very representative since t
below two while three hoards have
The typical Near Eastern hoard
'Abb?sid dirhams (67%-9i%). A s
(4 %-i4 %) were found in every ho
and Sasanian-type coins are prese
from the 780^ and the other is f
have a few coins of other dynastie
portrayed graphically in Table xv
Data on the chronological distribu
is given in Table xix and shown v
the available evidence only permit
the hoards. There is no material o
dirhams in the al-Khobar, Kuf
I have provided what data is availa
'Abb?sid and other post-749 coins.
The general pattern of the al-K
similar. There are relatively few
majority of post-750 coins. Furt
is what one would theoretically p
steadily declines from 22 % in the
5 % in the 8io's. There is a corresp
post-750 dirhams: from 79 % in th
to 95 % in the 8io's. Unfortunatel
pattern, if any, existed in the dis
other words, these hoards are com
dirhams struck after 750, but the b
by decade cannot be calculated.
WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS REACHED RUSSIA 44I
The Nippur and Denizbaji hoards, for which we have complete data,
follow the same general trend?relatively few pre-750 coins (11% and
14% respectively) and an overwhelming percentage of more recent,
post-750 dirhams (89% and 86% respectively). Although separated by
fifteen years, there is also a similarity in the distribution of their post
750 dirhams. There are very few coins from the 75o's (4 % and 3 %) and
very few from the period before burial?only 5 % from the 790^ in the
Nippur hoard and only 2 % from the 8oo's and 8io's among the Denizbaji
coins. In fact, the latter hoard has only one coin from the 8io's and its
comparatively few coins of the 8oo's were all struck very early in the
decade. As a result, 80 % of the Nippur hoard dates from the 760^ to
78o's while 80 % of the Denizbaji hoard dates from the 760^ to 79o's. If
we omit the 760^, then 69 % of the Nippur hoard comes from the 770^
to 79o's. The comparable figure for the Denizbaji hoard is 70%. In
short, both hoards are composed primarily of dirhams struck between
770 and 799 with at least half issued between 770 and 789.
50
40 AL-KHOBAR, NIPPUR, I UMM HAJARAH,
X Li
784/85 793/94 808/09
30
20
[-79-]
10
0
50
DENIZBAJI,
40 H KUFAH, 808/09 IRAN, 819/20
811/812
30
E?84?3
20 H -95
"il ?00000000
?-OLOtor^-oocno??1
o.r%.rv.Nivr>.r>.caoo
Table XX. THE CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOME

NEAR EASTERN DIRHAM HOARDS
Table xx shows that both the Nippur and Den

pyramids. There was a sharp increase toward
peaked and then a decline. In fact, the overall c
of both hoards is remarkably similar. The only d
more recent Denizbaji hoard naturally has a large
from the 790^ and 8oo's and, thus, a smaller perce
peak decade.
As before, the Umm Hajarah hoard with its large
follows a different pattern. This hoard forms a classical U?the few

number of dirhams from the period 700-769 are a trough surrounded by
the pre-700 Sasanian and 770-789 peaks. Since the large Sasanian com
ponent, as noted before, may constitute a regional Syrian characteristic,
we have given two sets of figures for this hoard; the upper figure is based
on the entire hoard while the lower figure results from omitting all pre
700 coins from our calculations. The latter, adjusted figures bear a
remarkable similarity to the Nippur and Denizbaji pattern: few dirhams
from 700-749 (9% vs. 11% and 14%), very few from the 750^ (4% vs.
4% and 3%), few coins from just before burial (9% from the 790^ and
8oo's vs. 5% from the 790^ and 2% from the 8oo's and 810's), and at
least half of all coins from the 770^ and 780^ (76% vs. 69% and 50%).
We can conclude this section by stating that the typical Near Eastern
hoard of the late eighth and early ninth centuries was composed over
whelmingly of dirhams struck between 760 and 799 (ca. 8o%-85%)
with some coins from the first-half of the century (5%-i4%) and only
a few of the most recently struck coins (2%-g%).
TABLE XXI
THE REGIONAL COMPOSITION OF NEAR EASTERN DIRHAM HOARDS

OF THE LATE EIGHTH AND EARLY NINTH CENTURY
VI C 01 <J V) <o
O T- -Q ?- ro C C
S O E ?- U MS (0
O 3 t/> ?t-3 4-> C 1
?f- z: e <t <o </> its. x
o +J ?- O ?i- l/> o
Ci? O -?=?/> i? &- KO Oft
tu tu <tj <-> cr-t->ci<ofl3&-ct/>
+-> u +-> ros-iTj-Qjarjrtjs
<d a) . o **- s- o s- -i- <tjjc j_uo
qo; 1-0 ?-?zh-^i? i?f-u
al-Khobar 784/85 + + + + +
Nippur 793/94 76 67 7 1 24 1
Unm Hajarah 808/09 199 29 56 4 8 2 111
Kufah 808/09 170 60 16 1 13 2 1 112 112 1
Denizbaji 811/12 2496 47 32 2 11 1+112 1111
Iran 819/20 662 49 29 + 18 11 1 +
The regional distribution of our Near Eastern

Table xxi. Fortunately, we have detailed data o
and can, at least, indicate what areas were rep
Khobar). Iraq is the dominant region in four of
there is detailed evidence. Furthermore, one
that Iraq coins formed the largest component amo
in the hoard from Saudi Arabia.
While Iraq dirhams are usually the most num
nent, the precise figures vary greatly. They co
793/94 Nippur hoard, the highest figure for any Near Eastern hoard.
The two 808/09 hoards typify the great disparities that sometimes arise
in contemporaneous hoards from the same part of the world. The Kufahi
hoard is 60% Iraq while the Umm Hajarah hoard contains almost
exactly half that number (29%). The low percentage of Iraq dirhams
in the latter is due to the very large percentage of north African coins.
It is tempting to attribute this difference to geography, i.e., the path from
north Africa to the Near East led through Syria before reaching Iraq
while one would expect locally minted Iraq coins to predominate in a
hoard from Iraq. However, more hoards from the same time and regions
are needed in order to substantiate such an explanation. Finally, Iraq
dirhams constitute just under half of the two hoards from the 8io's.
Once again the Umm Hajarah hoard proves to be an exception. Iraq
dirhams are the dominant element in all other Near Eastern hoards
(47%-67%). In Umm Hajarah, while composing a large component
(29%), they are much less than the north African dirhams (56%) as well
as the lowest figure from the other hoards (47%).
North African dirhams are the second largest component, particularly
in hoards from the early ninth century. In the two late eighth-century
hoards, they are either absent (al-Khobar) or minimal (7%-Nippur).
These low figures can be explained, in part, by the comparatively small
number of north African dirhams in the Near East at the time these
hoards were composed. It may also be possible that Saudi Arabia lay
to the south of the route from Tunisia to Iraq via Syria. We have
already noted the great discrepancies in the two 808/09 hoards, discrep
ancies which are even more pronounced for north African dirhams
(56 % vs. 16 %). While the Kufah hoard only had 28 % of the north Afri
can component found in the Umm Hajarah hoard, it does nevertheless
point to an increase in the number of north African dirhams reaching Iraq.
Our two hoards of the 810's again show an almost identical figure, ca. 30 %
north African dirhams. If the Iraq predominance was reduced between
the 79o's and 810's from ca. 60 % to ca. 50 %, the north African component
increased from under 10% to ca. 30%.
Transcaucasian dirhams are present in five of the six hoards but
always in very small numbers (less than .5% to 4%). Like the north
African dirhams, they are absent in the al-Khobar hoard. Geography
may provide the best explanation for this omission. In short, Trans
caucasian dirhams are a consistent but very modest component of the
Near Eastern hoards.
Dirhams from Jib?l are found in all of the six hoards. While never
the largest component, they nevertheless constitute a significant factor
in all five hoards for which we have detailed data, ranging from 8 % to
18%. Until we obtain precise information on the al-Khobar or other
late eighth-century hoards, it is not possible to say whether the 24 % in
the Nippur hoard was typical or perhaps due to the proximity of Jib?l to
Iraq. Jib?l dirhams thus form a component of some size in all Near
Eastern hoards but never exceed 25 %.
Before proceeding to the other regions, we should emphasize that the
four chief regions represented in early Russian and Caucasian hoards
were Iraq, north Africa, Transcaucasia, and Jib?l. It is no coincidence
70/u-i UMM I
60
604| N,PPUR HAJARAH I KUFAH DENIZBAJI IRAN
UUl, < id <ca ?Cro <C<o "^ ??

<oo2?-o roo2-? ?so2-? ?ao2-E ?jo2-o
izi- -=; J?zh-^ j=zh"-=; ^=z:i-. ?= ?z: h- '-=;
Table XXII. THE REGIONAL COMPOSITION OF NEAR EASTERN DIR

that these are the regions best represented in con

Eastern hoards.
All other regional components in the Near Easte
or less. While coins from some of these regions a
four hoards, the consistently insignificant percen
they never played an important part of these hoard
The typical Near Eastern hoard was thus compose
and north African dirhams with the former usua
lesser but still significant number of Jib?l dirham
Transcaucasian coins were normally included in
situation is graphically demonstrated in Table xxn.
Having examined the Near Eastern hoards, we ca
original problem. Are the early Russian hoards so s
poraneous Near Eastern hoards that the Russian h
to have been put together from the Near Eastern
or all early Caucasian hoards so similar to contemp
Near Eastern hoards that the route by which Near
exported to Russia can be said to have gone via th
Or, do the similarities indicate that the early R
composed from the Transcaucasian coin stock?
To answer the first question, let us summarize ou
the Russian and Near Eastern hoards.
Russian hoards
A. Dynastic
i. 'Abb?sid predominance in every hoard, ca. 48%-ioo%;
between 810/11 and 813 they run 2/3-4/5 'Abb?sid
2. Umayyad in all but two hoards but never over 15 %
3. About six different dynasties in the average hoard
4. Sasanian, Tabarist?n, and Idrisid coins (less than .5%
to 24%) in most hoards
5. A small percentage of Arab-Sasanian, Umayyad Gover
nors, Spanish Umayyad, Governors of Tudgha, Ispahbad,
and Aghlabid coins in several hoards.
B. Chronological
1. All hoards overwhelmingly composed of dirhams struck
after 769
2. Pyramidal and U patterns for recent dirhams
C. Regional
1. Primarily Iraq and north African dirhams?the former
predominate in the 787 hoard, the latter in all early
ninth-century hoards although the figures vary greatly
(27%-6i%)
2. Small (under 5 %) number of Transcaucasian dirhams in
every hoard
3. Jib?l coins in every hoard, n%-i8% in early ninth
century hoards
4. Tabarist?n coins in most hoards (1 %-i9 %)
5. A few coins from Khur?s?n, Jazira, Transoxiana, F?rs,
Kh?zist?n, Syria, Kirm?n, Spain and Sist?n in one or
more hoards
Near Eastern hoards
A. Dynastic
1. 'Abb?sid predominance in every hoard, ca. 44%-9i%;
between 811/12 and 819/20 they run 4/5 to 9/10 'Abb?sid
2. Umayyad in all hoards but never over 15%
3. About five different dynasties in the average hoard
4. Sasanian, Tabarist?n, and Idrisid coins in half the hoards
(i%-38%)
nors, Spanish Umayyad, Governors of Tudgha, and Aghla
bid coins in several hoards
B. Chronological
1. Overwhelming majority in five of six hoards apparently
struck after 769; in sixth hoard, 40 % post-769
2. Pyramid patterns for recent dirhams
C. Regional
1. Primarily Iraq and north African dirhams?the former
predominant in five of six hoards, the latter few in late
eighth century but increase in early ninth century

although figures vary greatly (i6%-56%)
2. Small (under 5%) number of Transcaucasian dirhams
in every hoard
3. Jib?l dirhams in every hoard, 8%-i8% in early ninth
century hoards
4. Tabarist?n coins in half the hoards (less than .5 %-2 %)
5. A few coins from Khur?s?n, Transoxiana, F?rs, Kh?zi
st?n, Syria, Kirm?n, Spain, Sist?n, and Arabia in several
hoards
We have already noted several cases where contemporaneous hoards

from the same general part of the world can differ significantly in one
facet or another. However, such idiosyncratic behavior in one hoard
or one specific measurement cannot be used as the standard of measure
ment. No two hoards from the same time and place will be exactly alike
and it would be unrealistic to expect replication. Therefore, we must,
look at broader patterns of convergence and divergence. In addition,
the criteria selected for use in making our comparison cannot reflect all
the nuances which were discussed in the detailed analysis. We can only
identify broader patterns by focusing on a relatively small number of key
indicators.
Based upon these two principles, I do not believe that there can be
any doubt about the striking similarity of the Near Eastern and Russian
dirham hoards. Their dynastic composition is more than similar; it is
almost identical on each of the five points all the way from the degree
of 'Abb?sid predominance to the representation of the "lesser" dynasties.
Chronologically, the hoards from both regions are very similar?most of
their coins were struck after 769. The Near Eastern and Russian hoards
are practically identical on 3 of the 5 regional criteria (No. 2,3,5). Both
are similar in having Iraq and north African dirhams as their two main
regional components. The only difference is that north African coins
dominate in all the Russian hoards of the early ninth century while Iraq
dirhams dominate in three of the four early ninth-century hoards from
the Near East. These differences, as suggested earlier, may be due to
the desire of many within Islam to send the somewhat less valuable north
African dirham abroad. Finally, the percentage of Tabarist?n coins
would be very much closer if we excluded the one Russian hoard from
Kniashchino. In short, the hoards from both regions are comparable
in their regional composition and very similar in many key aspects.
Given the high degree of similarity consistently encountered in the
Near Eastern and Russian dirham hoards of the late eighth and early
ninth centuries, I believe that only one conclusion is warranted. The
Near Eastern and Russian hoards were put together from the same coin
stock. Or, to put it another way, the early Russian hoards were compos
ed from coins circulating in the Near East. The early dirham hoards
which appeared in Russia consisted of coins exported from the Near East.
If we turn to the Caucasus and employ the same criteria, we find the
following.
Caucasian hoards
A. Dynastic
i. Earliest hoard primarily Umayyad but all other hoards
show an 'Abb?sid predominance; the four hoards of the
8oo's run 8i%-94% 'Abb?sid
2. Umayyad large in late eighth-century hoards (38%
89 %) but less than 10 % in early ninth-century hoards
3. About three and one-half dynasties in the average hoard
4. Sasanian, Tabarist?n, and Idrisid coins (i%-8%) in
several hoards
nors, and Aghlabid coins in several hoards
B. Chronological
1. Two earliest hoards composed primarily of pre-770
dirhams, two later hoards of 780^ dominated by coins
of 75o,s?770,s, but all early ninth-century composed
overwhelmingly of post-769 coins
2. Pyramidal and U patterns for recent dirhams
C. Regional
1. Eighth-century hoards primarily Iraq and very little
north Africa; ninth-century hoards divergent?three
primarily Iraq and only a few north African while two
have north African predominance
2. Large number of Transcaucasian dirhams (i2%-26%)
in most hoards but few or none in two
3. Jib?l coins in every hoard; i4%-28% in early ninth
century hoards
4. Tabarist?n coins in over half the hoards (i%-g%)
5. A few coins from Khur?s?n, Jaz?ra, F?rs, Kh?zist?n,
Syria, Kirm?n, Spain and Sist?n in one or more hoards
We have already seen that the early dirhams to reach Russia did not
come by way of Central Asia. Consequently, they must have been
transported by the Caucasus/Caspian route. Our question thus becomes
whether the early Russian hoards were drawn from the Caucasus as well
as the Near East or whether they were composed in the Near East and
shipped more or less in tact across the Caspian/Caucasus.
The earliest Caucasian hoards are quite different from contempora
neous Russian and Near Eastern hoards due to their large Umayyad
component. At the same time, we do not have hoards of the 770^ from
either Russia or the Near East so we cannot make an exact comparison.
However, the early ninth-century Caucasian hoards show considerable
similarities with contemporaneous hoards from the other two regions in
both their 'Abb?sid predominance and in the dirhams of "lesser" dynas
ties. This same distinction between late eighth and early ninth-century
Caucasian hoards appears in comparing chronological composition. The

former are different from Russian and Near Eastern hoards, the latter
are not. The regional distribution of the early Caucasian hoards again
differs from that of the hoards in both other regions. Some of the early
ninth-century Caucasian hoards are also different while others are very
close to the Russian pattern.
The Caucasian hoards begin with a different composition from that
of the other two regions, but, by the early ninth century, convergence
becomes the trend. The later Caucasian hoards resemble the contem
poraneous Russian hoards in many features and are identical in some
although a few idiosyncracies remain. The growing pattern of conver
gence suggests that by the early ninth century coins like those exported
from the Near East to Russia were becoming more prominent in the
Caucasus. In fact, the Petrovskoe and 803/04 Agdam hoards would fit
in very easily among the Russian or Near Eastern hoards of the time.
The comparative numismatic evidence points to two separate develop
ments in the Caucasus. On the one hand, starting by 770, and perhaps
even earlier, dirhams from the Near East were being imported into Trans
caucasia where they became part of the local coin stock. Their circu
lation here for some time is reflected in the comparatively large percentage
of local dirhams in many hoards. On the other hand, by the early ninth
century, there is strong numismatic evidence that dirhams from the Near
East were being exported to Russia via the Caucasus. Such groups of
coins intended for Russia normally left no trace in the Caucasus. How
ever, the 803/04 Agdam and especially the Petrovskoe hoards show
definite signs of having been deposited in the Caucasus while on their
way to Russia. The location of the Petrovskoe hoard leaves no doubt
that it had been transported across the Caucasus toward Russia when it
was buried before reaching its destination. Since all the early ninth
century Caucasian hoards were composed primarily from the Near Eastern
coin stock, they shared many similarities. But, the hoards headed for
Russia had much fewer Transcaucasian dirhams since they do not seem
to have circulated within this region and they contained a large number
of the depreciated north African dirhams which were not welcome in
Transcaucasia. Thus, the earliest dirhams to reach Russia were compos
ed from the Near Eastern, rather than the Transcaucasian, coin stock
even though they were transported to Eastern Europe by the Caucasus/
Caspian route.
Minneapolis, 1979.
i. Thomas S. Noonan, "When did dirhams first reach the Ukraine?," Harvard
Ukrainian Studies, 2 (1978): 27-29.
2. See, in particular, R. R. Fasmer, Zavalishinskii klad kuficheskikh monet VIII
IX v. (hereafter ZKFM) (Izvestiia gos. Akademii istorii materiaFnoi kul'tury,
VII, vyp. II) (Leningrad: 1931) and R. R. Fasmer, "Ob izdanii novoi topografii
nakhodok kuficheskikh monet v Vostochnoi Evrope," Izvestiia Akademii nauk
SSSR, otd. obshchestvennykh nauk, 6-7 (1933): 473-484.
3. ZKFM : 13.
4- V. L. Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy russkogo srednevekov'ia : domongoVskii
period (Moscow: 1956): 79-85. For a critique of Ianin's approach to this problem,
see Th. S. Noonan, art. cit. : 30-32.
5. N. F. Kotlar, "Obr?t arabskich dirhem?w na terytorium Ukrainy," Wiado
mosci numizmatyczne, 14 (1970): 19-30.
6. Ulla S. Linder Welin, "The first arrival of oriental coins in Scandinavia and
the inception of the Viking age in Sweden," Fornv?nnen (1974): 22-29.
7. Linder Welin's article is sharply criticized by Johan Callmer, "Oriental coins
and the beginning of the Viking period/' ibid. (1976): 175-185. There is a critique
of Kotlar's views in Th. S. Noonan, art. cit. : 26-40.
8. V. L. Ianin, op. cit. : 104-105.
9. V. V. Kropotkin, "Novye materialy po istorii denezhnogo obrashcheniia v
Vostochnoi Evrope v kontse VHI-pervoi polovine IX v.," in Slaviane i Rus'
(Moscow: 1968): 76; V. V. Kropotkin, Ekonomicheskie sviazi Vostochnoi Evropy v
I tysiacheletii nashei ery (Moscow: 1976): 120-122.
10. P. H. Sawyer, The age of the Vikings (London: 1962): 91-92.
11. Sture Bolin, Studier over Mynt och Myntfynd i ostra och Norra Europa under
Vikingatiden : 102-105 quoted in P. H. Sawyer, op. cit. : 106-107.
12. The question of monetary circulation within Eastern Europe is discussed in
Th. S. Noonan, "Monetary circulation in early medieval Rus': a study of Volga
Bulgar dirham finds", Russian History, 7 (1980): 294-311.
13. E. A. Pakhomov, Monetnye klady Azerbaidzhana i drugikh respublik, kraev
i oblastei Kavkaza (hereafter MKAiK), I-IX (Baku: 1926-1966.)
14. In addition to the Pakhomov volumes, there is a very good study of the
medieval coin finds from Armenia by Kh. A. Mushegian, Denezhnoe obrashchenie
Dviny po numizmaticheskim dannym (hereafter DOD) (Erevan: 1962) and a recent
work on the dirham hoards from Georgia by Irina L. Dzhalaganiia, Topografiia
kuficheskikh monet na territorii Gruzii (hereafter TKMG) (Tbilisi: 1972) which I could
only partially utilize due to the fact that it is in Georgian. As the reader can see
from Appendix 1, the descriptions of the Caucasian dirham hoards found in Pakho
mov, Mushegian, and Dzhalaganiia do not always agree. Fortunately, most of
the discrepancies are minor so that the use of one account in making calculations
does not substantially alter the outcomes in most cases. The author acknowledges,
however, that some readers might have selected alternate accounts for equally
good reasons and that future studies may show his choice to have been inaccurate.
But, until numismatics becomes an exact science and our data always remains
consistent, I do not know of any definitive solution to this problem of divergent
information.
15. MKAiK, I, No. 72:45. The Umayyad dirhams, including one from Arm?
niyah, 721/22, found in the environs of Tbilisi during the second-quarter of the
nineteenth century are sometimes described as a hoard. But, the information
about these dirhams {MKAiK, I, No. 73: 45) does not permit us to consider them as
a true coin hoard.
16. The Arab-Khazar struggle at this time is described in detail by D. M. Dun
lop, The history of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton: 1954): 41-87; W. Barthold
P. B. Golden, "Khazar," in Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed., IV (1978): 1173
1174; and, M. I. Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar (Leningrad: 1962): 177-192, 202-232.
17. Based on V. L. Ianin, op. cit., Table II, and V. V. Kropotkin, "Novye na
khodki sasanidskikh i kuficheskikh monet v Vostochnoi Evrope," (hereafter "Sas.
mon."), Numizmatika i epigrafika, 9 (1971), N? 12: 79; N? 47:82; N? 59: 83; N? 76:84.
18. Based on V. L. Ianin, op. cit., table I.
19. R. R. Fasmer, "Klad kuficheskikh monet, naidennyi v Novgorode v
1920 g.," Izvestiia gos. Akademii istorii materiaVnoi kul'tury, IV (1925): 267-268;
ZKFM: g, 12.
20. V. L. Ianin, op. cit. : 93-96. See, in particular, Ianin's chart (p. 96) compar
ing the weights of the north African and Near Eastern dirhams from the Elmed
hoard of 821.
21. Zofia Stos-Fertner, "Zastosowanie radioizotopowej analizy fluorescencyjnej
do oznaczania zanieczyszcze? ci?zkimi metalami srebra dirhem?w arabskich,"
Wiadomosci numizmatyczne, 19 (1975): 207-224.
22. Based on the data contained in Stos-Fertner's Annex: 220-223.
23. E. A. Davidovich, "Denezhnoe obrashchenie v Maverannakhre pri Samani
dakh," Numizmatika i epigrafika, 6 (1966): 132-134; Earle R. Caley, "Chemical
composition of some early dirhems," American Numismatic Society Museum Notes,
7 (1957): 211-217.
24. See, for example, the recent study of B. I. Vainberg, Monety drevnego
Khorezma (Moscow: 1977).
25. See, for example, E. A. Davidovich, Numizmaticheskie dannye po sotsial'no
ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Srednei Azii X-XVIII vv., Avtoreferat dok
torskoi dissertatsii (Dushanbe-Moscow: 1964).
26. M. E. Masson, "K voprosu o 'chernykh dirhemakh' museiiabi," Trudy
Institu?a istorii i arkheologii Akademii nauk Uzbekskoi SSR, 7 (1955): 175-196;
T. S. Ernazarova, "Denezhnoe obrashchenie Samarkanda po arkheologo-numizma
ticheskim dannym (do nachala IX v.)," Afrasiab, 3 (1974): 155-243, especially
180-183; Jolm Walker, A catalogue of the Arab-Sassanian coins (London: 1941):
lxxx-xcvii; Richard N. Frye, Notes on the early coinage of Transoxiana (Numis
matic Notes and Monographs, No. 113) (New York: 1949). Also see the references
given in Appendix iv.
27. T. S. Ernazarova, art. cit. : 181.
28. M. E. Masson, art. cit : 186-187, quoted in ibid. : 182.
29. J. Walker, op. cit. : xciv-xcvi.
30. Muhammad Abu-1-Faraj al Ush, The silver hoard of Damascus (Damascus:
1972).
APPENDIX I
CAUCASIAN DIRHAM HOARDS OF THE LATE EIGHTH

AND EARLY NINTH CENTURIES
i. In the ruins of Barda'a (modern Barda), Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in the early

i90o's were found several tens of 'Abb?sid dirhams from which I. Ismail-ogly
supplied the Azerbaidzh?n State Museum one dirham in 1924: al-'Abb?s?yah, 782/
83.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, I, N<> 76: 45.]
2. Near the village of Karchag, in Aga-mishe ravine, Kiurin okrug, Dagestan
oblast', while ploughing in 1903, silver coins were found in a clay jug: 5 'Abb?sid
dirhams struck in 793, 796, 797, and 803; 14 fragments of Sasanian drachms as
well as Umayyad and 'Abb?sid dirhams. The hoard was returned to the finder.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, I, N<> 79: 46.]
3. Near Arkhava, in Lazistan, not far from the former Russian-Turkish frontier,
a hoard evidently containing as many as 300 Umayyad and 'Abb?sid coins was
found in the summer of 1907. According to the finder, the hoard included about
10 gold coins which he sold in Turkey; the rest were silver. Of the remainder, the
finder brought about 250 dirhams to Batumi and showed them to Pakhomov. The
dirhams date from 723/24 to 811/12. Over 100 of the coins were purchased by
Pakhomov.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, I, N? 80: 46; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD : 45-46, 155,
No 9.]
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68-811/12, over 100
al-Muhammad?yah, 765/66-804/05, about 40
Arm?n?yah, 784/85-807/08, about 20
No more than 10 from each of the following mints: al-K?fah, 749/50-764/65; al
Basra, 751/52-777/78; Arr?n, 769/70-804/05; Ma'din Bajunays, 805/06-810/11;
Balkh, 798/99-802/03; Jayy, 778/79; W?sit, 723/24-741/42; Sijist?n, 788/89
790/91; Zaranj, 792/93-794/95; Ifr?q?yah, 781/82 and 804/05; al-H?r?myah,
787/88; Har?n?b?d, 785/86; al-Rayy, 795/96; Istakhr, 756/57; Kirm?n, 784/85.
4. In the neighborhood of Kirovabad (formerly Ganja), Azerbaidzh?n SSR,

in the 1920's, was found a hoard of Umayyad and 'Abb?sid dirhams which was
purchased by Pakhomov in 1929. All the coins were greatly oxidized, very fragile,
and while preserved by the finder many had broken into pieces. In toto, 187 dir
hams (120 whole, 50 cut along the edges or in half, 17 pieces) were obtained. The
earliest coin dated from 699/700 and the most recent from 771/72. The best
preserved dirhams were sent to the Azerbaidzh?n State Museum.
[E. A. Pakhomov, "Gandzhinskii klad 1929 g. i perelomnyi moment Arabskoi
torgovli v Zakavkaz'i," in Akademiia nauk SSSR; xlv: Akademiku N. la. Marru
(Moscow-Leningrad: 1935); 737~744? MKAiK, II, N? 383: 21; Kh. A. Mushegian,
DOD : 38, 154, No 2.]
Arr?n, 763/64, 771/72 (4)
Ardash?r-Khurra, 713/14, 714/15, 715/16
Arm?n?yah, 713/14 (4), 716/17, 717/18, 720/21, year cut off?Umayyad, 763/64
(2), 771/72 (4), year cut off?'Abb?sid
Istakhr, 710/11, 714/15 (2)
al-Andalus, 724/25, 726/27, 732/33
al-B?b, 737/38
al-Basra, 718/19 (3)
al-Taimara, 709/10
al-Jaz?ra, 747/48
Jundai-S?b?r, 709/10, year cut off?Umayyad
D?r?bjird, 710/11, 711/12 (2), 712/13, 713/14
Dimashq, 705/06, 706/07 (3), 707/08 (2), 708/09, 711/12, 712/13, 718/19 (2), 722/
23, 723/24, 726/27, 729/30, 732/33, 739/4?? 74I/42, year cut off?Umayyad (4)
al-Rayy, 762/63, 764/65
S?b?r, 701/02, 711/12
S?q al-Ahw?z, 716/17
al-'Abb?s?yah, 769/70
Kirm?n, 709/10 (2), 710/11
M?hi, 711/12
al-Mub?raka, 727/28
al-Muhammad?yah, 767/68
Marv, 707/08, 708/09, 710/11 (2), 728/29
Mais?n, 699/700
Nahr-T?r?, 713/14
Har?t, 713/14
Hamad?n, 711/12
W?sit, 7?4/?5 (2), 7?5 (3), 705/06 (4), 707/08 (7), 708/09, 709/10 (4), 710/11 (4),
711/12 (7), 712/13 (8), 713/14 (5), 714/15 (3)> 715/16 (2), 717/18 (3), 721/22, 723/
24, 725/26, 726/27 (2), 727/28 (4), 728/29 (4), 730/31 (2), 731/32, 735/36, 737
(2), 737/38 (3), year cut off?Umayyad (8)
Mint cut off, 705, 710/11, 714/15, 745/46, 761/62
Mint and year cut off, Umayyad?13 & Abbasid?1.
5. From Kariagino, Kariagino raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in March 1934, a
hoard of 93 silver coins reached the Sector of Precious Metals in Baku. The earliest
coin dated to 698/99 and the most recent to 782/83. Sixteen coins from this hoard
were sent to the Azerbaidzh?n State Museum (Inventory Catalogue 6678-6693).
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, II, No 386: 22; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD: 39, 155,
No 4.]
I. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (1)
Khursh?d, 731
II. Umayyad (9)
Istakhr, 709/10, 713/14
Ifr?q?yah, 731/32
Jayy, 698/99
al-Mub?raka, 737/38
W?sit, 704/05, 709/10, 717/18, 735/36
III. 'Abb?sid (83)
Arm?n?yah, 760/61, 762/63 (2), 767/68 (2), 768/69, 777/78 (3), 778/79, 781/82,
782/83
* Pakhomov (Vol. II) lists 15 coins from Arm?n?yah, 5 coins with the mint cut
off but not the date, and 14 coins whose mint and date are both cut off. Mushegian,
however, lists 14 coins from Arm?n?yah and 20 with no mint. As best I can
determine, there are at least 14 dirhams struck in Arm?n?yah, at least 19 dirhams
whose mint has been cut off, and apparently one disputed dirham which is either
Arm?n?yah or has its mint cut off.
al-Basra, 751/52 (3), 752/53, 753/54, 755/56, 756/57, 75^/59, 760/61, 761/62,
764/65, 777/78
al-Rayy, 764/65
al-K?fah, 749/50 (2), 751/52, 756/57, 758/59, 761/62 (2), 762/63, 763/64
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 766/67 (3), 767/68 (2), 769/70 (2), 770 (3), 770/71 (4),
771/72 (5), 772/73 (8), 773/74 (10), 775/76, 776/77, 777/7s (2), 778/79 (2)
al-Muhammad?yah, 763/64, 765/66 (2), 766/67
No mint given, 2
6. From Tauz, Tauz raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in October 1933, the Sector of
Precious Metals in Baku obtained a small hoard of 'Abb?sid dirhams. The earliest
coin was struck in 748/49 and the most recent in 786/87.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, II, No 388: 22; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD: 39-40.]
I. * Abb?sid (10)
al-Basra, 748/49, 755/56
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68, 771/72, 772/73, 774/75, 780/81
al-H?run?yah, 786/87
Mad?nat Zaranj, 782/83
7. From Agdam, Agdam raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in December 1934, a hoard
of 60 silver coins reached the Sector of Precious Metals. The earliest coin dated
to 595 and the most recent to 803/04. Part of the coins from this hoard reached
the Azerbaidzh?n State Museum in Baku.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, II, N? 391: 23; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD: 40, 155,
No 6.]
I. Sasanian (2)
Khusraw II: NAX, 595; NAR, 614.
II. 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (5)
'Umar b. al-'Al?, 777, 779 (2)
Sa'?d b. Da'laj, year distorted
Anonymous, 781
III. Umayyad (2)
W?sit, 713/14, 728/29
IV. Idrisid (1)
'Ali b. Ab? Talib, Tudgha, 790/91
V. Aghlabid (1)
Ibrahim I, Ifr?q?yah, 802
VI. "Abb?sid (48 or 49)*
Arr?n, 802, 803/04
Arm?n?yah, 768/69
Ifr?q?yah, 780/81, 785/86 (2), 786/87, 787/88, 790/91
Bad'a or Tudgha, no date
al-Basra, 755/56, 761/62
Mad?nat Jayy, 778/79
Mad?nat Zaranj, 782/83
al-'Abb?s?yah, 777/78 (2), 778/79 (2), 780/81 (3), 782/83, 783/84, 776/77
785-86, 786/87 (2), 787/88 (3), 789/90, 786/87-795/96
Kirm?n, 785/86
al-K?fah, 756/57
al-Muhammad?yah, 782/83, 784/85, 788/89, 789/90, 796/97 (2), 801/02
Pakhomov said the hoard contained 60 coins but he only enumerated 59.
14
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 766/67, 769/70, 773/74, 776/77, 778/79, 779/80, 795/96

Misr, 798/99
8. Near the village of Pshaveli, Telavi raiow, Georgian SSR, in late 1937, a hoard
of 150 silver coins was found. The hoard was identified by T. N. Lomouri. The
earliest dirham was struck in 732/33 and the most recent dated from 807/8.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, III, No 822: 37; I. L. Dzhalaganiia, TKMG, No 31:
10-11; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD: 42, 155, N? 8.]
I. Sasanian and Umayyad Governors of Iran (12)
Includes Sh?h Khusraw II and 'Abd al-Rahman, Governor of Khur?s?n,
ca. 667-ca. 681.
II. Caliphate dirhams (138)
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 39
al-Muhammad?yah, 30
al-'Abb?s?yah, 10
Arr?n, 795/96, 798/99, 799/800, 800/01, 802 (2), 802/03 (2), 803/04, 804/05
Jayy, 8
Arm?n?yah, 763/64, 798/99, 801/02, 802 (2), 805/06 (2)
Ma'din Bajunays, 6
al-Basra, 6
Zaranj, 4
Ifr?q?yah, 4
W?sit, 4
Kirm?n, 2
Balkh, 2
al-K?fah, 1
al-Harun?yah, 1
al-Mub?raka, 1
al-Andalus, 1
Mint unclear, 2
While I was unable to utilize Dzhalaganiia fully, her data suggests the following
composition:
I. Sasanian (1)
Khusraw II, 1
II. Arab-Sasanian (1)
661-679, 1
III. Umayyad (4)
732/33, 738/39, 739/40, 747/48
IV. Some other? (1)
770/71
V. 'Abb?sid (115)
as-Saff?h (750-54)'- 751/52
al-Mans?r (754"775)- 763/64, 763/64 (2), 765/66, 766/67, 767, 770/71 (2),
768, 770 (2), 770/71, 772/73 (3), 773/74 (6),?, 772/73
al-Mahd? (775-785): 777/7?, 777/7? (3), 777/78 (2), 778/79 (2), 779/8o, 785/
86, 783/84, 784/85, 778/79 (7), 778/79, 782/83, 785/86
al-H?di (785-786): 786/87
al-Rash?d (786-809): 795/96, 799/800, 800, 802, 802/03, 803/04, 804/05, 798/
99, 801, 802 (3), 805/06, 802/03, 789/90, 792/93, 797/98, 798/99, 791/92,
799/800, 802, 804/05, 795/96 (2), 796/97, 805/06, 806, 807/08, 805/06,
798/99, 802/03, 791/92, 794/95, 795/96 (5), 796/97, 799/800, 801 (3), 802,
803/04 (2), 804/05, 787/88, 791/92 (4), 798/99, 799/800 (2), 800, 801 (2),
802 (5), 803/04 (3), 807/08, 807/08
9. In the city of Agdam, Agdam raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in April 1935, a hoard
of 79 silver coins was found. The earliest coin was struck under Khusraw II in
626; the most recent dirham dated to 804/05.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, III, N? 823: 37-38; Kh. A. Mushegian, DOD : 40-41,
155, No 7.]
1. Sasanian (3)
Khusraw II, 626 (2), 627
II. Umayyad Governors (2)
'Abdallah b. al-Zubair, year unclear (died 692/93)
'Amir-i-viruishnakan [?], year unclear
III. 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (1)
Anonymous, 783
IV. Umayyad (6)
V. 'Abb?sid (65?)*
VI. Idrisid (1)
Idr?s I, Wal?la, 790/91
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68, 769/70, 770, 772/73 (3), 773/74 (2), 774/75, 775/76, 776/77
(3), 798/99
al-Muhammad?yah, 765/66, 766/67, 767/68, 783/84, 788/89 (2), 796/97, 797/98, 801/
02, 802, 804/05
Arr?n, 802/03 (3), 803/04 (3), 804/05 (3)
al-Basra, 750/51, 761/62, 763/64, 764/65 (2), 778/79, 797/98
Arm?n?yah, 766/67, 801/02, 802 (2), 803/04
al-H?run?yah, 785/86, 786/87 (3), 787/88
W?sit, 710/11, 7I3/I4, 738/39, 739/40, 743/44
Mad?nat Jayy, 778/79 (5)
al-K?fah, 749/50 (2), 764/65
Ifr?q?yah, 782/83, 793/94
Mad?nat Balkh, 798/99
Sijist?n, 708/09
Tabarist?n, 763/64
al-Rayy, 763/64
al-'Abb?siyah, 787/88
* Pakhomov gives the following dynastie breakdown: Sasanian, 3; Umayyad

Governors, 2; Anonymous Tabarist?n, 1; Umayyad, 6; 'Abb?sid, ^5; and, Idr?sid,
i, for a total of 68 coins. However, his enumeration of the coins from each mint
suggests at least 65 'Abb?sid dirhams (Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 14; al-Muhammad?yah,
11; Arr?n, 9; al-Basra, 7; Arm?n?yah, 5; al-H?run?yah, 5; Mad?nat Jayy, 5; al-K?fah,
3; Ifr?q?yah, 2; Mad?nat Balkh, 1; al-Rayy, 1; al-'Abb?siyah, 1; anonymous 'Abb?sid,
1). The 6 Umayyad dirhams are presumably the 5 from W?sit and the dirham
from Sijist?n. Pakhomov's information on the coins from Tabarist?n is also
unclear. He lists an anonymous Tabarist?n coin dating from the 132nd year of
the Tabarist?n era. According to Walker (J. Walker, op. cit. : lxx, 238) the
132nd year of the Tabarist?n or Post-Yezdigird era was 783 a.D. This date
coincides with the period when AFZUT or anonymous coins were issued by the
Arab/'Abb?sid governors of Tabarist?n, i.e., a.d. 780-794 (ibid., lxxii). However,
Pakhomov also lists a Tabarist?n coin of A.H. 146 = 763/64 A.D. Since A.H. 146
? year 132 of the Yezdigirid era, it may be that Pakhomov used the Yezdigirid,
rather than the Post-Yezdigirid, calendar. While Mushegian apparently takes
these as two separate Tabarist?n coins, one 132 P-Y era and another 146 A.H., we
cannot rule out the possibility that there was only one Tabarist?n coin. In any
event, the diverse information about this hoard found in Pakhomov is not complete
ly clear or consistent.
Anonymous 'Abb?sid dirham of the type from 767/68-775/76 restruck from an

Umayyad dirham of 713 /14
10. In the village of Verkhnii Adiaman (now Verin Getashen), Martunin raion'
Armenian SSR, in 1939, a small hoard of Umayyad and 'Abb?sid dirhams was
found of which the History Museum of the Armenian Academy of Science obtained
10. These coins were identified by Pakhomov in 1949. The earliest coin dated
to 715/16 and the most recent to 786/87.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, IV, No 1076: 31-32; VI, No 1605: 46; Kh. A. Mushe
gian, DOD: 39, 155, No 5.]
According to Pakhomov's second description:
I. Umayyad (2) This account differs from Pakhomov's first description of the
hoard.
W?sit, 715/16, 743/44
IL 'Abb?sid (8)
Anonymous, Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 773/74 (2)
al-Mahd?, Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 777/78, 779/80; Arm?n?yah, 778/79, 781/82; al
Muhammad?yah, 778/79
al-H?di, al-H?run?yah, 786/87
According to Mushegian, 13 coins from this hoard reached the State Historical
Museum of Armenia (Inventory No. 14516-17, 14522, 14577, 15197):
I. Umayyad (2)
W?sit, 743/44, date effaced
II. 'Abb?sid (11)
al-K?fah, 763/64
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 770/71, 777/78, 779/80, 773/74 (2)
al-Muhammad?yah, 765/66, 781/82
Arm?n?yah, 778/79 (2)
Pakhomov's two accounts vary slightly and neither corresponds to Mushegian's
description.
11. In the village of Khazry, Kusary raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in 1953, while
digging along the SW edge of the village, a small hoard of 'Abb?sid dirhams was
found supposedly numbering 18. One coin was sent to Baku where it was identified
by Pakhomov.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, VII, No 1777: 37-38.]
'Abb?sid, the heir to the throne, al-Amin, al-Muhammad?yah, 797/98.
12. Near a village on the Petrovskoe (now Svetlograd) grain sovkhoz, Petrovskoe
raion, Stavropol' krai, in August 1956, a bulldozer uncovered a small hoard of
silver coins of which a local museum official collected 34. These coins were sent
to the State Historical Museum in Moscow and identified by S. A. Ianina. The
hoard is now preserved in the Stavropol' Museum (No. 12937). The earliest coin
was struck in 686/87 and the most recent in 804/05. Pakhomov believed the
hoard was buried in the first-quarter of the ninth century.
[E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, VIII, No 1965: 28-29; V. V. Kropotkin, "Sas. mon.",
No 3: 78.]
I. Umayyad Governors of Iran (1)
al-Hajj?j b. Y?suf, 686/87*
* Kropotkin dates the earliest coin to 701/02.
II. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (1)
Khursh?d, Tpurstan, 766 (posthumous)
III. Umayyad (1)
W?sit, 705
IV. 'Abb?sid (31)
al-Mans?r: al-K?fah, 753/54; al-Muhammad?yah, 765/66, 771/72 (2); Mad?nat
al-Sal?m, 772/73 (2)
al-Mahd?: Isbah?n, 782/83; Ifr?q?yah, 781/82, 785/86; al-'Abb?s?yah, 780/81;
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 777/78, 778/79
ar-Rash?d: Ifr?q?yah, 791/92, 786/87-795/96, 802; Bad'a, 792/93; al-'Abb?
s?yah, 787/88 (2), 790/91, 791/92?, 792/93?, 786/87-795/96, 798/99; al
Mub?raka, 796/97; al-Muhammad?yah, 789/90, 797/98, 802, 804/05;
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 795/96, 797/98; mint not clear, 799/800
13. A hoard of 35 dirhams was discovered somewhere in Georgia during 1965.

[I. L. Dzhalaganiia, TKMG, No 10: 6-7.]
I. Umayyad? (1)
740/41
II. 'Abb?sid? (34)
as-Saff?h (750-754)- 752/53, 75^/52, 752/53
al-Mans?r (754"775)- 769, 760/61, 767, 77*/72, 753/54, 758/59, 760/61, 764/65,
753/54, 759/60, 761/62, 764/65, 754/55, 764/65, 767, 759, 770, 770/71,
772/73, 773/74, 774/75
al-Mahd? (775/785): 778/79, 77^>l77> 782/83, 776/77, 777/78, 778/79, 781/82
al-H?d? (785-786): 785/86, 786/87, 785/86
14. A hoard (?) of 32 (?) coins was found somewhere in Georgia during 1924.
[I. L. Dzhalaganiia, TKMG, No 36: 16.]
I. Sasanian? (2)
Khusraw II, 625, 628
II. Umayyad Governors? (1)
680-692
III. Tabarist?n? (4)
740-75i, 759/60, 773/74, 780/81
IV. Umayyad? (12)
710/11, 699/700, 729/30, 711/12, 733/34, 738/39, 739/40, 740/41 (2), 74J/42
(2), 745/46
V. 'Abb?sid? (13)
as-Saff?h (750-754): 752/53, 752/53, 749/50 (2)
al-Mans?r (754"775): 757/58, 759/6o (2), 760/61 (2), 762/63, 763/64, 764/65,
765/66
15. Near the village of Sepnekeran, Lenkoran raion, Azerbaidzh?n SSR, in the
spring of 1961, a hoard apparently composed of several kilograms of silver coins
was found. While most of the coins disappeared, 20 were collected from kolkhoz
niki and the field of the find-spot. Two coins from the hoard had earlier been sent
to the Institute of History of the Azerbaidzh?n SSR. The earliest coin dated to
707/08 and the most recent to 787/88.
[A. V. Ragimov, "Klad kuficheskikh monet iz Lenkoranskogo raiona," Izvestiia
Akademii nauk Azerbaidzhanskoi SSR, Seriia istorii, filosofii i prava, 4 (1966): 55
62.]
I. Umayyad (3)
al-Wal?d I: Wasit, 707/08, 713/14; Man?dhir, 713/14
IL 'Abb?sid (19)
al-Mans?r: al-K?fah, 759/60, 761/62; al-Basra, 763; al-Muhammad?yah, 765/
66 (2), 766/67; Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 772/73, 773/74 (3)
al-Mahd?: Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 774/75, 776/77, 777/78, 781/82; W?sit, 779/80;
Arm?n?yah, 784/85; al-Muhammad?yah, 784/85
al-H?d?: Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 786/87
ar-Rash?d: Sijist?n, 787/88
APPENDIX II
SEVENTH AND EIGHTH-CENTURY HOARDS

OF BYZANTINE COINS FROM THE CAUCASUS
1. Grchi, Shamshadinskii raion, Armenia, around 1942. A hoard of some 10

12 silver Byzantine coins was found of which one was identified: a hexagram of
Heraclius, 615-629.
[V. V. Kropotkin, Klady vizantiiskikh monet na territorii S SSR (hereafter KVM)
(Moscow: 1962), N? 360: 42.]
2. Dvin, Art?shatskii raion, Armenia, 1947. A hoard of 115 silver Byzantine
coins struck in Constantinople was found: 106 Heraclius, 615-629; 9 Heraclius, 638
641. The hoard was buried between 640 and 653.
[V. V. Kropotkin, KVM, No 364: 42.]
3. Dvin, Art?shatskii raion, Armenia, 1955. A hoard of 220 silver Byzantine
and Sasanian coins was found: 136 Sasanian, 531-628; 84 Byzantine hexagrams
struck in Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius, 615-629.
4. Dvin, Art?shatskii raion, Armenia, no date given. A hoard of 163 Byzan
tine coins was found: 31 gold, 115 silver, and 18 copper. The copper coins were
from the reigns of Justin I, 518-527, Justin II, 565-578, Phocas, 602-610, and
Heraclius, 610-641.
5. Igdir, former Surmalinskii uezd, Erevan province (now in Turkey), no date
given. A hoard of silver hexagrams of Heraclius, 615-629, struck in Constantinople
was found.
6. Kosh, Ashtarakskii raion, Armenia, 1931. A hoard of 54 silver Byzantine
coins was found: 5 Heraclius, 615-629; 4 Heraclius, 638-641; 45 Constans II, 641-668.
7. Leninakan, Akhurianskii raion, Armenia, around 1956. A hoard of 108 silver
Sasanian and Byzantine coins was found: 92 Sasanian drachms, c. 516-629;
16 Byzantine hexagrams?5 Heraclius, 610-641, and 11 Constans, 641-668.
8. Echmiadzin, Echmiadzinskii raion, Armenia, 1908. A hoard of 20-30 silver
Byzantine coins was found of which 10 were identified: Heraclius, 610-641.
9. Mtskheta, Mtskhetskii raion, Georgia, 1902. Nine silver Byzantine coins
of Heraclius, 613-641, were found.
[V. V. Kropotkin, KVM, No 425a: 44.]
10. Tbilisi, Georgia, 1904. Byzantine coins of Heraclius, 613-641, were found
in a hoard of 700-800 coins along with Sasanian drachms, 579-628.
11. Chibati, Lanchkhutskii raion, Georgia, 1958. A hoard of no less than
2 000 gold Byzantine coins was found of which 124 struck in Constantinople were
identified: 1 Tiberius, 578-582; 1 Maurice, 582-602; 106 Phocas, 602-610; 14 Hera
clius, 610-641; 2 undetermined.
12. Sukko, Anapskii raion, Krasnodar krai, 1955. A hoard of 14 gold Byzantine
coins was found of which 5 were identified: 3 Constans II> 641-668, and 2 Constan
tine IV, 668-685.
[V. V. Kropotkin, "Novye nakhodki vizantiiskikh monet na territorii SSSR,"
Vizantiiskii vremennik, 26 (1965), No. 7 (26): 168.]
APPENDIX III
RUSSIAN DIRHAM HOARDS OF THE LATE EIGHTH AND

EARLY NINTH CENTURIES
1. Near Staraia Ladoga, the former St. Petersburg province, along the shores of
the Volkhov River, in 1892, a hoard of 31 'Abb?sid dirhams was found. The earliest
dirham dates to 749/50 and the most recent to 786/87.
[A. K. Markov, comp., Topografiia kladov vostochnykh monet (sasanidskikh i
kuficheskikh) (hereafter TKsas. kufi) (St. Petersburg: 1910): 140, N? 24.]
al-Jaz?ra, 749/50
al-K?fah, 749/50
al-Basra, 754/55, 759/6o, 764/65, 773/74, 783/84 (2)
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68, 770, 770/71, 771/72, 773/74, 774/75 (2), 776/77, 778/79
(2), 780/81, ixx A.H. (2)
al-'Abb?s?yah, 776/77, 780/81, 786/87
Ifr?q?yah, 785/86, 786/87 (4)
Arm?n?yah, 778/79
2. Krivianskaia station, 8 versts from Cherkassk, in the Sukhaia Kadamovka
ravine, in the former lands of the Don Cossacks, in April 1894, a hoard of 83 coins
was found in a clay pot. The earliest coin dates to 556 and the most recent to
805/06.
[A. K. Markov, TKsas. kuf. : 137, No 8.]
I. Sasanian (2)
Khusraw I, 556, 561
Anonymous, 717
III. Umayyad (2)

W?sit, 739/40
al-Jaz?ra, 746/47
IV. 'Abb?sid (69)
al-K?fah, 755/56, 756/57
al-Basra, 760/61
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 768/69 (2), 773/74, 774/75 (3), 775/76, 778/79, 781/82,
776/77-785/86, 791/92
al-'Abb?s?yah, 769/70, 770/71, 774/75, 775/76, 777/78 (2), 778/79 (2), 779/8o,
780/81 (3), 782/83, 783/84 (4), 786/87 (4), 787/88 (4), 788/89 (2), 792/93
(2), 793/94, 795/96, 796/97, IXX AH- (3)
al-Muhammad?yah, 776/77, 778/79, 781/82, 784/85, 788/89, 796/97, 805/06
Jayy, 778/79 (2)
Zaranj, 782/83
Arm?n?yah, 783/84, 793/94
Mahdi, 784/85
Ifr?q?yah, 791/92, 792/93, 796/97, 798/99
Misr, 796/97
Arr?n, 803/04
V. Idrisid (8)
Wal?la, 790/91
Tudgha, 792/93 (5), 793/94, 795/96
3. In the village of Kniashchino, in the former St. Petersburg province, in

1874, peasants found a hoard of over 300 coins of which 90 were preserved. The
earliest coin dates to 539 and the most recent to 808/09.
[A. K. Markov, TKsas. kuf : 32-33, N? 179-181; R. R. Fasmer, "Spisok monet
nykh nakhodok, zaregistrirovannykh sektsiei numizmatiki i gliptiki... v 1920
1925 gg.," Soobshcheniia gos. Akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury, 1 (1926): 291,
No 38.]
I. Sasanian (9)
Khusraw I, 539
Hurmizd IV, 589
Khusraw II, 591, 593, 595, 612, 622 (2), year unknown
Yazdigird, 640/41
Ziy?d b. Ab? Sufy?n, unclear place and year, 672/73
'Ubaidall?h, 678/79, 682/83, unknown year (2)
al-Hajj?j b. Y?suf, 696/97
'Umar b. al-'Al?, 773, 774, 777, 778 (2), 779, 780
Sa'?d b. Da'laj, 777 (2)
H?ni b. H?ni, 789
IV. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (4)
Khursh?d, 755
Anonymous, 775, 779, 783 (The dates suggest that these coins may have
been issued by the 'Abb?sid governors.)
V. Umayyad (13)
al-Basra, 700/01
Dimashq, 7?3/?4, 73*/32
W?sit, 704/05, 708/09, 711/12, 721/22, 730/31, 734/35
Ifr?q?yah, 732/33
Dastaw?, 711/12
Kirm?n, 714/15
Marv, 748/49
VI. Spanish Umayyad (2)
Cordova (i.e., al-Andalus), 771/72
al-Andalus, 777/78
VIL 'Abb?sid (43)
al-'Abb?s?yah, 776/77, 784/85, 787/88 (3)
al-Muhammad?yah, 771/72, 779/80, 785/86, 788/89, 797/98, 798/99, 800/01,
801/02, 806/07
Ifr?q?yah, 783/84, 786/87, 792/93, 795/96
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 767/68, 770/71, 776/77, 778/79, 788/89, 796/97, 797/98,
803/04
al-K?fah, 762/63 (2)
al-Rayy, 764/65
Jayy, 778/79 (4)
Ifr?q?yah or al-'Abb?s?yah, 782/83-792/93 (6)
Bad'a, 784/85
Balkh, 804/05, 808/09
Ma'din Bajunays, 808/09
VIII. Jdn$*? (1)
Bad'a, 788/89
4. Zavalishino, Kursk province, in June 1927, a peasant found a hoard of
52 coins. The earliest coin dates to 595 and the most recent to 809/10.
[R. R. Fasmer, Z#FM.]
I. Sasanian (2)
Khusraw II, 595, year cut off
IL 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (4)
'Umar b. al-'Al?, 775/76, year cut off (2)
Sa'?d b. Da'laj, 777/78
III. Umayyad (3)
D?r?bjird, 709/10
W?sit, 705-716/17, 726/27-727/28
IV. 'Abb?sid (36)
al-Basra, 756/57, 786/87
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 765/66-770, 771/72, 772/73, 776/77, 779/80, 798/99-799/
800, 800/01
al-'Abb?s?yah, 772/73, 782/83, 783/84, 785/86, 786/87-795/96, year effaced,
year cut off (4)
Tudgha, 776/77-785/86
Ifr?q?yah, 792/93"793/94
Unclear African mint, 787/88, year unclear (3)
al-Muhammad?yah, 771/72, 777/78, 784/85, 802, 805/06
Ma'din al-Sh?sh, 805/06
Mad?nat Bukhara, 809/10
Mint and year cut off
Undetermined, 19X A.H.
V. Governors of Tudgha (2)
Halaf, 791/92
'Amr b. Hamid, 792/93
VI. Idrisid (2)

Idr?s I (?), Tudgha, 790/91 or Wal?la, 789/90 or Idr?s II, Wal?la, 795/96 or
796/97
Idr?s II, Wal?la, 798/99 or 801/02
VIL Byzantine (1)
Leo IV and son, 775-780
VIII. Counterfeit dirhams (2)
5. At the Right-bank Tsimliansk fortified site, during archaeological excava
tions, Rostov ablast', in 1958, a hoard of 48 coins was found. The earliest coin dates
to 579-590 and the most recent to about 809/10.
[V. V. Kropotkin, "Sas. mon.", No 76: 84.]
I. Sasanian (5)
III. Umayyad (5)
IV. Umayyad Governors of Iran (3)
V. 'Abb?sid (24)
VI. 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (9)
VIL Idrisid (1)
6. Khitrovka, Moscow oblast', during construction work, in 1932, a hoard of
coins was found of which 12 were preserved. The earliest coin dates to 748/49
and the most recent to 810/11.
[V. V. Kropotkin, "Sas. mon.", N? 47: 82.]
I. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (1)
IL 'Abb?sid (9)
III. Idrisid (2)
7. Nizhnie Novoselki, Briansk oblast', in 1959, a hoard of 124 coins was found.
The earliest dates to 573/74 and the most recent to 811/12.
I. Sasanian (5)
II. Umayyad Governors of Iran (1)
III. Umayyad (13)
IV. 'Abb?sid (91)
V. Governors of Tudgha (5)
VI. Idrisid (3)
VII. Undetermined (1)
8. Kremlevskii, Orel oblast', in 1956, a hoard was found of which 77 coins
(ca. 2/5 of entire hoard) were preserved. The earliest coin dates to 557 and the
most recent to 812/13.
I. Sasanian (8)
III. Ispahbads of Tabarist?n (1)
IV. Governors of Tabarist?n (8)
V. Umayyad (2)
VI. 'Abb?sid (51)
VIL Idrisid (5)
VIII. Aghlabid (1)
9. Nizhniaia Syrovatka, in the former Khar'kov province, in 1848, a hoard of
206 coins was found in a clay pot. The earliest coin dates to 702/03 and the most
recent to 812/13.
[A. K. Markov, TKsas. kufi : 52, No 301; E. A. Pakhomov, MKAiK, II: No 610:
70.]
I. Sasanian and Tabarist?n (several)
II. Umayyad (10)
702/03-749/50
III. Spanish Umayyad (1)
IV. 'Abb?sid (144)
749/50-812/13
87 were north African dirhams and 9 were from Transcaucasian mints.
V. Idrisid and Governors of Tudgha (21)
[V. L. Ianin, op. cit., Table II, lists 22 Idrisid and 22 Governors of Tudgha
dirhams.]
VI. Aghlabid (1)
10. Ugodichi, in the former Iaroslav' province, in 1914, a hoard of ca. 148 coins
was found of which 127 were preserved. The earliest coin dates to 592 and the
most recent to 812/13.
[R. R. Fasmer, Dva klada kuficheskikh monet (Trudy numizmaticheskoi komis
sii, VI) (Leningrad: 1927).]
I. Sasanian (5)
Khusraw II, 592, 601, 605, 625, unclear
Anonymous, 749/5?, 752/53
III. Umayyad (9)
al-Basra, 699/700
Dastaw?, 709/10
al-S?s, 699/700
al-Mub?raka, 737/38
W?sit, 711/12, 730/31 (2), 740/41, 742/43
IV. 'Abb?sid (100)
al-Basra, 750/51, 756/57, 759/6o, 761/62
al-Muhammad?yah, 766/67, 771/72, 777/78, 796/97, 797/98, 798/99, 799/800,
807/08
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 768/69 (2), 770, 772/73, 773/74, 776/77, 778/79, 781/82
(2), 785/86, 796/97 (3), 797/98 (2), 798/99, 799/800, 804/05 (3)
Ifr?q?yah, 781/82, 785/86 (2), 789/90, 791/92 (2), 792/93, 796/97, 799/800,
unknown year (3)
Tudgha, 771/72
Mad?nat Jayy, 778/79 (4), 786/87
al-'Abb?s?yah, 776/77, 77^/79 (3), 781/82, 782/83, 783/84 (2), 784/85 (2),
unknown year (9), 787/88 (5), 788/89, 790/91 (2)
Unclear African mint (9)
Arm?n?yah, 796/97, 808/09
Mad?nat Bukhara, 808/09
Mad?nat Balkh, 802 (2), 804/05
al-Mub?raka, 791/92, 796/97
Ma'din Bajunays, 807/08, 808/09
Ma'din al-Sh?sh, 805/06
Unclear mint (1)
Mad?nat Samarqand, 812/13
V. Idrisid (6)
Idr?s I, Tudgha, 790/91 (2), unknown year
Idr?s II, Tudgha, 794/95, 796/97; Wal?la, 802
VI. Governors of Tudgha (5)
Halaf, Tudgha, 791/92, 792/93 (2), unclear year
*Amr, Tudgha, 792/93
APPENDIX IV
DIRHAM HOARDS OF THE EIGHTH AND

EARLY NINTH CENTURIES FROM CENTRAL ASIA
1. Near the station of Guzar, Samarqand oblast', Uzbekistan, in 1915, a hoard

of 4 coins was found along the railroad: an Umayyad dirham, W?sit, 705, and
3 'Abb?sid dirhams, no mint given, 793-799.
[B. V. Lunin, "K topografii i opisaniiu drevnikh monetnykh kladov i otdel'nykh
monetnykh nakhodok na territorii Uzbekistana (po arkhivnym dannym) ", Istoriia
material'noi kul'tury Uzbekistana, 8 (1969): 191.]
2. Pendzhikent, Tadzhikistan, during archaeological excavations of the ancient
city, in 1962, a hoard of 18 silver coins was found.
[A. M. Belenetskii, "Klad serebrianykh monet iz Pendzhikenta, " Epigrafika
vostoka, 17 (1966): 92-100.]
I. Umayyad (6)
Dimashq, 704/05; W?sit, 708/09, 709/10; Kirm?n, 708/09; Istakhr, 709/10;
al-B?b, 735/36.
II. Bukhara (Bukh?r-Khud?t) (12)
Bukhara imitations of drachms of Bahram V (11)
Turgar (730-738) (1)
There is some controversy about the dating of the Bukh?r-Khud?t coins;
while Belenetskii dates them all to the pre-'Abb?sid era, others attribute
some to al-Mahd?, either as caliph (775-785) or as governor of Khur?s?n
(759-775). Thus, Belenetskii dates the hoard as a whole to the late 730's
whereas others would date it to the second-half of the eighth century.
3. Somewhere in southern Tadzhikistan, about 1964-1965, a hoard of around

400 silver coins was found. The 180 or so coins to be studied consisted of Umayyad
and 'Abb?sid dirhams and Bukh?r-Khud?t drachms with an Arabic inscription.
The earliest dirham dated to 699/700 and the most recent to 750/51. The mints
of the dirhams included: Ardash?r-Khurra, Arm?n?yah, Istakhr, al-Basra, al-Tai
mara, Jundai-S?b?r, Surraq, al-S?s, S?q al-Ahw?z, Kirm?n, al-K?fah, M?hi,
Man?dhir, Marv, Nahr-T?ra, D?r?bjird, Dastaw?, Dimahq, Sijist?n, and W?sit.
[E. A. Davidovich, "Klady vostochnykh monet, naidennye v 1964-65 gg. na
territorii Tadzhikistana," Epigrafika vostoka, 19 (1969): m.]
4. During the excavations of Afrasiab (ancient Samarqand) in Uzbekistan,
ca. 1970, a hoard of 155 dirhams from the reign of al-Mahd? (775-785) (or al-Mans?r)
and 9 dirhams from the reign of al-Am?n (809-813) was found.
[T. S. Ernazarova, "Novye nakhodki monet VII-X vekov," Obshchestvennye
nauki v Uzbekistane, 9 (1972): 51-52.]
5. During the excavations of Afrasiab, ca. 1970, a hoard of 127 dirhams from
the reign of al-Mahd? and 37 dirhams from the reign of al-Am?n was found.
[T. S. Ernazarova, art. cit. : 51-52.]
6. During the archaeological excavations of ancient Pendzhikent, in 1955, a
hoard of 10 'Abb?sid drachms was found which Smirnova dates to the third-quarter
of the eighth century.
[O. I. Smirnova, "Klad abbasidskikh drakhm s Pendzhikentskogo gorodishcha /
Tret'ia chetvert' VIII v.," Epigrafika vostoka, 15 (1963): 58-72.]
These 10 drachms are examples of Bukh?r-Khud?t bilingual (Arabic and Sog
dian) silver coins struck in imitation of Sasanian drachms of Bahram V. Smirnova
attributes 9 of the 10 drachms to the coinage of al-Mahd? as governor of Khur?s?n
and Transoxiana (759-775). The tenth coin is attributed to Abu D?'?d H?lid,
governor of Khur?s?n (755-757).
appendix v
DIRHAM HOARD OF THE LATE EIGHTH AND EARLY

NINTH CENTURIES FROM THE NEAR EAST
1. al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 1966. A hoard of 42 silver coins was found.

The most recent coin dates to 784/85.
[Coin Hoards, 1 (1975): 73, N? 269.]
1. Sasanian (5)
Kawadh I (488-531) to Khusraw II (590-628)
'Ubaidall?h b. Ziy?d, 681/82
'Ubaidall?h b. Ab? Bakra, 698/99
Sa'?d b. Da'laj, 'Umar b. al-'Ala, and Anonymous, between 777-783
IV. Umayyad (2)
Abarqub?dh, 700/01
D?r?bjird, 708/09
V. 'Abb?sid (28)
al-K?fah, al-Muhammad?yah, Mad?nat al-Sal?m, al-Basra, Mad?nat Jayy,
al-Yamamah, and uncertain, between 750/51 and 784/85
2. Umm Hajarah, Syria, 1970. A hoard of 408 silver coins was found. The
most recent coin dates to 808/09.
[Coin Hoards, 1 (1975): 73, N? 270; M. Abu'l-Faraj al-'Ush, Kunz Umm Hajarah
al-fiddl I The silver hoard of Umm Hajarah (Damascus: 1972.)]
I. Sasanian (155)
Firuz (459-484) to Hurmizd V (631-632)
Various governors, between 661/62 and 702/03
III. Umayyad (17)
Jayy and W?sit, between 712 and 748/49
IV. Kharijite (i)

al-K?fah, 745/46
V. 'Abb?sid revolutionary (1)
Marv, 749/50
VI. Spanish Umayyad (1)
al-Andalus, 786/87
VIL 'Abb?sid (179)
Arm?n?yah, 764/65, 771/72 (2), 777/78
al-Basra, 751/52, 752/53, 754/55, 756/57 (2), 757/58, 760/61, 783/84, 797/98
al-'Abbas?yah, 768/69, 772/73 (2), 774/75 (3), 775/76 (3), 776/77 (7), 777/78
(7), 778/79 (8), 779/80 (4), 780/81 (11), 781/82, 782/83 (16), 783/84 (4),
784/85, 785/86 (7), 776/77-785/86 (3), 786/87 (5?), 787/88 (6?), 788/89 (2),
789/90, 790/91, no date
al-K?fah, 757/58
al-Muhammad?yah, 771/72 (3), 781/82, 786/87, 788/89 (2), 798/99, 801/02
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 765/66, 767/68, 769/70 (2), 770/71, 771/72, 773/74 (5),
774/75 (4), 775/76, 777/78 (2), 778/79 (4), 779/80 (6), 780/81 (2), 786/87,
788/89, 795/96, 798/99
Ifr?q?yah, 781/82 (2), 782/83, 783/84 (2), 785/86 (2), 786/87 (4), 787/88, 788/
89 (2), 789/90, 791/92, 793/94
Mad?nat Jayy, 778/79 (2)
H?r?n?b?d, 785/86
al-H?run?yah, 786/87, 787/88
Kirm?n, 785/86
Sijist?n, 786/87, 789/90
Mad?nat Balkh, 801/02, 808/09
Misr, 796/97
3. Somewhere in the Middle East, in 1975 or earlier, a hoard of silver coins of
unstated number was found. The most recent coin dates to 793/94.
[Coin Hoards, 3 (1977): 98, N? 259.]
L 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (?)
H?ni b. H?ni (787-789)
Muq?til (790)
'Abdallah b. Qafrtaba (791)
Anon. Afzut type (781-793)
4. Iran, 1970 or earlier, a hoard apparently consisting of at least 668 silver
coins was found. Thus far, information has been published on three seemingly
distinct groups of coins all coming from this same hoard. The earliest coin dates to
699/700 and the most recent to 819/20. The description below combines all three
reports.
[Coin Hoards, 1 (1975): 73, N? 272; 2 (1976): 97-98, N? 370; 3 (1977): 98, N? 261.]
I. Umayyad (o + 31 + 3 = 34)
W?sit, 28 between 704/05 and 745/46
Dimashq, 6 between 699/700 and 724/25
IL 'Abb?sid (108 + 187 + 313 = 608)
Ifr?q?yah, (6 + 14 + 6 = 26) between at least 781/82 and 802
Arr?n, (0+1+0=1), 809/10
al-Basra, (8 + 14? + 19 = 41) between at least 753/54 and 814/15
Balkh, (3 + o + 1 = 4) at least 802
Mad?nat Balkh, (0 + 2 + 0 = 2) both 803/04
Jayy, (1+0 + 0=1)
Mad?nat Jayy, (o + 1 + o = 1) 778/79
al-Rayy, (1+0 + 0=1)
Zaranj, (1 + 0 + 0=1)
Mad?nat Zaranj, (o + 1 + o = 1) 804/05
Samarqand, (1+0 + 0=1)
Mad?nat Samarqand, (0 + 2 + 0 = 2) 810/11, 811/12
al-'Abb?s?yah, (39 + 86 + 19 = 144) between at least 770/71 and 793/94
Qasr al-Sal?m, (1 + 1+0 = 2) at least 783/84
al-K?fah, (4 + 1 + 7 = 12) between at least 754/55 and 817/18
al-Mub?raka, (0 + 2 + 0 = 2) 791/92, 796/97
al-Muhammad?yah, (19 + 23 + 75 = 117) between at least 765/66 and 816/
17
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, (23 + 38 + 181 = 242) between at least 765/66 and 819/
20
Ma'din al-Sh?sh, (1 + o + 1 = 2) at least 805/06
Marv, (0+1 + 1 = 2) 756/57, 801/02
Undetermined, (0 + 0 + 3 = 3) 792/93, 799/800 (2)
III. Idrisid (10 + 6 + 4 = 20)
Tudgha, (8 + 1 + 3 = 12) between at least 790/91 and 798/9
Wujta, (1+0 + 0 = 1) between 791/92 and 804/05
Wal?la, (1+4+1=6) between at least 796/97 and 799/800
Fas, (0 + 0+1 = 1) 805/06
IV. Aghlabid (1 + 1+0 = 2)
Ifr?q?yah, 804/05
'Abdullah I?, mint unclear, ixx A.H.
V. Kharijite Imams of Tudgha (0+1 + 1=2)
Halaf, Tudgha, 809/10, 791/92-792/93
5. Kufah, Iraq, 1971, a hoard of 178 silver coins was found. Th
dates to 611 and the most recent to 808/09.
[Coin Hoards, 2 (1976): 97, N? 369.]
I. Sasanian (3)
Khusraw II, 611, 625, 626
II. Umayyad Governors (1)
Muhammad, 660/61 ?
'Umar b. al-'Al?, 772
Sa'?d b. Da'laj 777
Anonymous, 787
IV. Umayyad (24)
al-Andalus, 736/37
al-Basra, 700/01
D?r?bjird, 712/13
Dimashq, 3 between 699/700 and 732/23
Nahr-T?r?, 714/15
W?sit, 17 between 711/12 and 748/49 (including one counterfeit
V. 'Abb?sid (140)
Arm?n?yah, 763/64
Ifr?q?yah, 784/85 (2)
al-Basra, 17 between 751/52 and 778/79
Balkh, 800/01
Jayy, 778/79 (3)
R?mhurmuz, 751/52
al-Rayy, 763/64
Zaranj, 795/96, 802/03

San'?, 800/01
Sijist?n, 788/89
al-'Abb?s?yah, 22 between 774/75 and 789/90
Kirm?n, 783/84
al-K?fah, 14 between 749/50 and 764/65
al-Mub?raka, 791/92
al-Muhammad?yah, 18 between 765/66 and 798/99
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 52 between 765/66 and 804/05
N?s?bur, 808/09
H?r?nab?d, 785/86
VI. Kharijite Imams of Tudgha (2)
Tudgha, 792/93 (2)
VIL Uncertain (1)
Tudgha, 796/97-804/05
6. Nippur, Iraq, 1973, a hoard of 76 dirhams was found during archaeological
excavations of the medieval site. The earliest coin dates to 704/05 and the most
recent to 793/94.
[Michael L. Bates, "A hoard of dirhams found at Nippur, " in McGuire Gibson,
et al, Excavations at Nippur: twelfth season (The Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago Communications, No. 23) (Chicago: 1978): 126-138.]
I. Umayyad (8)
al-Taimara, 710/11
W?sit, 704/05, 714^5, 727/28, 739/40, 74!/42 (2), 747/48
IL 'Abb?sid Governors of Tabarist?n (1)
Sa'?d b. Da'laj, 776
III. 'Abb?sid (66)
Arm?n?yah, 791/92
Ifr?q?yah, 782/83, 786/87, 793/94
al-Basra, 754/55 (2), 759/60, 763/64 (2), 764/65, 776/77 or 777/78, 781/82
(2), 783/84
al-Rayy, 763/64
al-'Abb?s?yah, 775/76-780/81
al-K?fah, 751/52, 759/6o, 761/62 (2), 758/59-764/65
al-Muhammad?yah, 765/66, 766/67, 767/68, 769/70, 770, 771/72 (2), 781/82,
782/83 (2), 784/85 (2), 786/87, 788/89, 789/90
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, 765/66, 769/70 (2), 770, 770/71 (3), 771/72 (4), 772/73 (4),
773/74, 774/75 (2), 770/71-774/75, 775/76, 776/77 (2), 777/78, 778/79,
779/80, 780/81, 781/82 (2), 781/82-782/83
IV. Idrisid (1)
Idr?s I, Wal?la, 790/91
7. Denizbaji, Urfa district, Turkey, 1937, a hoard of over 2 505 dirhams was
found. The earliest coin dates to 698/99 and the most recent to 811 /12.
[Ibrahim Artuk, Denizbaci definesi (Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan VII.
Seri-Sa. 48) (Ankara: 1966).]
This hoard is so big that to describe each coin in any detail would require excessive
space. Therefore, I have only listed dynasties and mints. For further information
the reader should consult the account of the hoard by Artuk.
I. Umayyad (335)
al-Basra, Jayy, Jundai-S?b?r, Dimashq, Marv, Nahr-T?r?, W?sit, D?r?bjird,
Dastaw?, Hamad?n, Har?t, Istakhr, Kirm?n, Q?mis, M?hi, S?b?r,
Sijist?n, Surraq, S?q al-Ahw?z, al-Taimara, Ardash?r-Khurra, Arm?
n?yah, Ifr?q?yah, al-K?fah, Acjharb?yj?n, al-B?b, Balkh, al-Andalus,
al-Mub?raka, al-Jaz?ra, as-S?m?yah
IL 'Abb?sid partisans (6)
R?mhurmuz, al-Rayy
III. 'Abb?sid (1968)
Dimashq, Ardash?r-Khurra, al-Basra, Jundai-S?b?r, al-K?fah, Suq al
Ahw?z, al-'Abb?s?yah, Arr?n, Arm?n?yah, Has?m?yah, Ifr?q?yah, Istakhr,
Mad?nat al-Sal?m, al-Muhammad?yah, al-Rayy, Atjharb?yj?n, Mad?nat
Jayy, H?r?n?b?d, Qasr al-Sal?m, Kirm?n, Tudgha, Yamana, Mad?nat
Zaranj, al-H?run?yah, Balkh, Jayy, al-Mub?raka, San'?, Sijist?n, Zaranj
IV. Spanish Umayyad (34)
al-Andalus
V. Idrisid (74)
Tudgha, Tacercere, Wal?la
VI. Governors of Tudgha (73)
Tudgha
VIL Aghlabid (15)
al-'Abb?s?yah, Ifr?q?yah
15

How Dirhams Reached Medieval Russia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Dirhams Reached Medieval Russia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EHESS

WHEN AND HOW DIRHAMS

The thousands of medieval Islamic silver coins, or dirham

Cahiers du Monde russe et sovi?tique, XXI (3-4), juil.-d?c. ig8o, pp. 4

Map I. EARLY CAUCASIAN DIRHAM HOARDS

Europe). Consequently, the date of the earliest dirham hoards deter

Map II. EARLY RUSSIAN DIRHAM HOARDS

The discussion of how is presently at the same stag

to the question has, unfortunately, been ignored in the studies known

The presence or absence of coin hoards in the Caucasus can best be

THE DYNASTIC COMPOSITION OF THE EARLY CAUCASIAN

The first dirham hoard to be deposited in the Caucasus was over

Staraia Ladoga 787 31 100

R1!Ssk 809'"> 4810 10

"'Ac? 813 206 + +

Umayyad dirhams are present in all but tw

Table III. THE DYNASTIG COMPOSITION OF EARLY CAUCASIAN

early ninth century. However, the percentage of Umayyad dirhams in

Table IV. THE DYNASTIC COMPOSITION OF EARLY CAUCASIAN

THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITION OF EARLY CAUCASIAN

Kirovabad 771/72 148 20 50 12 1 4 5

Table v shows the chronological composition of the early di

70%) of dirhams struck at least a half-century before its date of deposit.

Table VI. THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITIO

Table VII. THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITION OF EA

vu graphically represent the chronological data on the early Caucasian

THE CHRONOLOGICAL COMPOSITION OF EARLY RUSSIAN

Staraia Ladoga 787 31 10 10 41 38

The above evidence indicates that there was no single chronolo

Data on the chronological composition of the early Russian dirham

THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EARLY CAUCASIAN

Kirovabad 771/72 167 52 1 3 12 4 1 4 13

THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EARLY RUSSIAN

Table XII. THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

Table XIII. THE REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

containing on average between io % to 25 % Jib?l dirhams, or that Jib?l

Staraia Ladoga Zavalishino

These figures demonstrate very clearl

Table XIV. THE PERCENTAGE OF AFRICAN

Comparable data for the Caucasian hoards is as follows:

THE SILVER CONTENT OF VARIOUS DIRHAMS

Weight % Ag Total Ag Weight

Part B of Table xv gives Stos-Fertner's data on 21 Near Eastern

The average Near Eastern dirham studied from the mid-77o's to

At this point, our comparative analysis of the earliest dirham hoards

THE DYNASTIC COMPOSITION OF NEAR EASTERN DIRHAM HOARDS

Umm Hajarah 808/09 408 38 13 4 44

Denizbaji 811/12 2505 3 13 79

The only exception to this decisive 'Abb?sid preponderance is the

Table XVIII. VARIOUS DYNASTIES REPRESENTED IN

THE CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEAR EASTERN DIRHAM HOARDS

al-Khobar 784/85 42 17 (? -79.)

Eastern hoard had coins from ju

Table XX. THE CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOME

Table xx shows that both the Nippur and Den

follows a different pattern. This hoard forms a classical U?the few

THE REGIONAL COMPOSITION OF NEAR EASTERN DIRHAM HOARDS

The regional distribution of our Near Eastern

UUl, < id <ca ?Cro <C<o "^ ??

Table XXII. THE REGIONAL COMPOSITION OF NEAR EASTERN DIR

that these are the regions best represented in con

Near Eastern hoards